No snark implied or taken! The reason for this isn't about the source data as much about the destination data. We are pulling the data for use in another system and we are trying to populate a new field with content based upon similar source data. It will be normalized in the destination system. Problem is that we'll be pushing data to the new system on an on-going basis. Therefore, I'm trying to build a process that will work in all of the situations that might come up. I also was intrigued by the prospect of playing around with some "fuzzy logic."
This process does not have to use a Select statement, I just thought that might be the fastest way rather than scanning through the x-ref table on every employee record. I did something similar with another client where they could enter a range of values into a field and then we expanded the range to an array to include every value in the range and did an ascan to test, but I was thinking there might be a better way. Paul H. Tarver -----Original Message----- From: ProfoxTech [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ted Roche Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2019 12:30 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Reverse Wildcard String Comparison Requisite snarky comment: if a join depends on only _part_ of the value of another field, the data is not normalized. Are the DeptNum fields really literally question marks and digits, as if they were wildcards? If so, you could write some UDF to convert DOS wildcards of * and? to SQL wildcards of % and _ It's a bit unholy but it ought to get the job done: SELECT Employee.*, Dept.* from Employee JOIN Dept ON Employee.Dept LIKE MyUDF(Dept.DeptNum) On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:57 PM Paul H. Tarver <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, I need a little help and here's the scenario: > > > > I have an x-ref table that looks like this: > > > > DeptNum, Description, Value > > 1??, Dept 1, 99930 > > 2??, Dept 2, 92382 > > 3??, Dept 3, 83728 > > ?4?, Dept 4, 27377 > > > > Next, I have a data table with thousands of employees with department > numbers I want to scan through. If the employee's dept # is 101, then in > the > fastest way possible, I want to compare 101 to the DeptNum in the x-ref > table and return the value 99930. If the employee's dept # is 141, then the > search should return both 99930 and 27377 and I'll perform some logic to > determine which value is most important. > > > > I know I can do SELECT queries using the LIKE statement such as Select * > from x-ref where x-ref.DeptNum LIKE "1%", but in this case, I know the > explicit value and I need to compare it to the masked values in the x-ref > table. So I really need to the reverse which would be Select * from x-ref > where "1%" LIKE x-ref.DeptNum (which doesn' t work, I know.). FYI, The > DeptNum field can be up to 20 characters long and I am guessing the masked > values could be as well. > > > > Unfortunately, I think I'm stuck mentally on doing this with a SQL Query > and > I'm not able to think outside of this box right now, so any suggestions > will > help. Hell, at this point, I'll take snarky comments, but only if they > contain clues to how I need to proceed. LOL > > > > Thanks in advance > > > > Paul H. Tarver > > > > > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- > multipart/alternative > text/plain (text body -- kept) > text/html > --- > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ 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: https://leafe.com/archives This message: https://leafe.com/archives/byMID/[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.
