Found problem -- case was set on, turned it off, now all is well.
Bernie Lis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bernard Lis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "RBG7-L Mailing List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 8:02 PM
Subject: [RBG7-L] - RE: Count is off
Alastair, Javier,
The inmo field is indexed, but that shouldn't make any diff, should it?
Bernie Lis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Javier Valencia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "RBG7-L Mailing List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 6:24 PM
Subject: [RBG7-L] - RE: Count is off
Bernie:
Do you have and Index define for the selection field?
Javier,
Javier Valencia, PE
President
Valencia Technology Group, L.L.C.
14315 S. Twilight Ln, Suite #14
Olathe, Kansas 66062-4578
Office (913)829-0888
Fax (913)649-2904
Cell (913)915-3137
================================================
Attention:
The information contained in this message and or attachments is intended
only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon,
this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient
is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender
and
delete the material from all system and destroy all copies.
======================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bernard Lis
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 5:10 PM
To: RBG7-L Mailing List
Subject: [RBG7-L] - Count is off
R>sel inmo from inv where count=last
inmo
----------
A044884
R>sel inmo from inv where count > 1620
inmo
----------
Z868204
Z868214
Z868214
Z868214
Z868214
The last item in the list above should be the same as the first
select????
I tried this on another database and got similar results.
Can anyone verify this or tell me what I am doing wrong?
I autochk'd even reloaded and get the same result
Bernie Lis
