Mark: Do you mean "accounted for"?
Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Johnson > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 7:58 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [U2] Basic vs Execute Select > > You're kidding. I requested 'counted for', not counted. > > The earlier SELECT thread brought up the concept of records > added during the processing. Thus, how could you insure that > all records were processed, even those latecomers. > > Mark Johnson > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ralph Burton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 1:32 PM > Subject: Re: [U2] Basic vs Execute Select > > > > EXECUTE "COUNT FILENAME" > > > > > > Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A recent thread debated the speed of these 2 SELECT methods. > > > > My question is what would be the preferred way to insure that all > > records > may > > be counted for on an active system instead of a dormant system. > > > > Thanks in advance. > > Mark Johnson > > ------- > > u2-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. > > ------- > > u2-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ > ------- > u2-users mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
