On Fri, July 12, 2013 10:52 am, Richard Kaye wrote: > First make it work; then take out the slow bits. :-)
I did! I had a similar need as a software I designed last year so I'm refactoring now for this new need. > > > Refactoring is good. How many more cycles you think you can squeeze out > by using shorter column names? ;-) If you can do that you maybe you can > stick with the CURSOR approach. Of course, Uncle Ted will tell you that > you need to do your testing/benchmarking with data that matches your > production environment... :-) Oh I'm not beholden to the long field names...I was just surprised when I tested it and got that odd behavior. Definitely going to test with short field names now. Vince -- for some reason, I was thinking that APPEND FROM MyCursor (into my real, permanent target table and without using the FIELDS clause) had to match up for columns, but I guess I was wrong. More testing today. _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
