Razzak,

Thanks for that, but I note that if I reduce the length of the text
(including the three 'numeric' characters at the start) I get different
values from the Hash command. Does IHASH need an alternative function RHASH
(a real value) to cater for longer strings ?

R>sel company nvhash from qt
 company                                  nvhash     
 ---------------------------------------- ---------- 
 250spirosetplain                          522109344  - these are unique
 350spirosetplain                          522109345  - these are unique
 150spirosetplain                          522109347  - these are unique

Regards,
 
John Docherty

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A. Razzak
Memon
Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2005 11:01 a.m.
To: RBG7-L Mailing List
Subject: [RBG7-L] - Re: IHASH Command


At 04:51 PM 2/21/2005, John Docherty wrote:

>Razzak,
>
>Data from my new table, qt is as follows - I added the two 'problem'
>rows, which I have since found are not unique in my data, as follows.
>
>R>sel company nvhash from qt
>  company                                  nvhash
>  ---------------------------------------- ----------
>  250Computer Warehouse - II                507350364
>  350Microtech University                   935204673
>  450Industrial Computers Inc.              524758399
>  550Computer Mountain Inc.                 333077815
>  250spirosetplaininsulated                 963864368
>  350spirosetplaininsulated                 963864368

John,

The reason you have the SAME IHASH value for the last two records
is that both "TEXT" values (strings) are exactly the same.

FYI, the IHASH function is designed to create effective integer
keys from the text columns.

The function, IHASH, converts the entire TEXT value, or just a
specified number of TEXT characters.

Hope that explains!

Very Best R:egards,

Razzak.

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.306 / Virus Database: 266.2.0 - Release Date: 21/02/2005
 

Reply via email to