All,
Thank you for the suggestions. They are all appreciated. I have
decided to go with a second set of hold variables and make a comparison
against the hold var and the form var. If any changes were made I will
build the update or insert. I guess there is no easy way out of this
but all of your input was a very big help.
Once again I would like to thank everyone for there suggestions.
Rich s.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Frank Radice
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 12:47 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Checking Variables for any change?
Why not just create a set of variables to hold the initial values (SET
vCustX = .vCust,...) and then do a comparison after the form (IF vCust
<>
.vCustX THEN;UPDATE...). You could also do the updates for all the
relevant
columns in the desired tables, even if the initial value & final value
are
the same. The first method could require a maximum of 39 updates
(assuming
39 variables), the second would always take 10 updates (for 10 tables).
You
could also make variable comparisons for all variables associated with a
specific table (IF vCust <> .vCustX OR vAdd <> .vAddX
OR...THEN;UPDATE...
{all fields associated with variables for this table}).
-----Original Message-----
From: tellef [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 9:09 AM
To: INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Checking Variables for any change?
Rich:
>My problem is: What is the easiest way I can check which variables have
>been changed. I would then update only the appropriate table / tables
>(Approx. 10 tables) that are affected. <
Okay I doubt this is easier programming wise but maybe someone else
could
think of a way to do this... Would it be possible to load all the
initial
variables into one column of a temp table, maybe even with 2 columns for
the
table & column that the variables refer to, then do a series of probably
39
update columns after the form to put the new values next to the old
ones.
Then you can update where the old column <> new column, probably
dynamically
constructing the UPDATE statement as you go thru a cursor if you like.
It's technically cooler than doing 39 comparisons, but is it easier and
faster???
In case I was unclear, a temp table like this:
OldValue Table Column NewValue
hello Table1 Text1 hello
bye Table1 Text2 goodbye
Cursor thru the table where oldvalue <> newvalue, construct the
update statement using the table & column name in ampersand variables.
Worth trying?
Karen
