I would use a straight Select in basic program and not use an Execute or Perform. OPEN "FILES" TO F.FILES ELSE ... SELECT F.FILES
Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 1:32 PM Subject: Re: [U2] Basic vs Execute Select > EXECUTE "COUNT FILENAME" > > > Mark Johnson 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/ --------------------------------- 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/
