On Aug 31, 2009, at 4:16 PM, Lew wrote: > Not sure why you want to do this. Is it that you believe seek/ > replace to be faster than replace ... For ...?
Because the list of stuff to replace has gotten so long and cumbersome that it is beyond managing manually. Sometimes later replace commands are tripping over earlier commands -- it is just a bleedin' mess. It would be much easier to manage if the "bad" and "replace" values were in a table. Speed isn't an issue, as this is a "clean-up" routine that only needs to be run once in a while. We have no control over the crappy data coming in, we just don't want it as crappy in our system. Ken _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/962f0000-f1a2-4992-9f69-dc4e623d4...@information-architecture.com ** 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.
