I have not run into that problem lately if the second table is indexed. Dennis
________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Downall Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:19 AM To: RBASE-L Mailing List Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: Update command question Dennis, That's interesting. Once upon a time, you had to have the table that was being updated list first, in the list of tables after FROM, or the update could have unexpected results. Bill On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Dennis McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: Also, put the view first in the list and make sure bunktable.mo_number is indexed, even if it is a temp table. Putting the view first makes the query much faster. Dennis McGrath ________________________________ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Bill Downall Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:14 AM To: RBASE-L Mailing List Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: Update command question Bob, It looks like your datatypes don't quite match. You could try ((1.0 * t1.sevenft) + t2.Mo_Qty) Bill On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Bill Downall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: Bob, Do you get what you expect when you do this: SELECT t1.sevenft, t2.Mo_Qty, (t1.sevenft + t2.Mo_Qty) + FROM bunktable t1, totals_view t2 + WHERE t1.mo_number = t2.mo_number Bill On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:04 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: R>update bunktable set sevenft = (t1.sevenft + t2.Mo_Qty) from bunktable t1, totals_view t2 where t1.mo_number = t2.mo_number Columns have been updated in 1 row(s) in BunkTable
