I originally wrote: > This set of statements returns correct results: > > >SELECT WAREHOUSE WITH PRIM.BIN.NUM <= "139" > 551453 records selected to list 0. > > >SELECT WAREHOUSE WITH PRIM.BIN.NUM >= "131" > 123 records selected to list 0. > ... > But this set does not: > > >SELECT WAREHOUSE WITH PRIM.BIN.NUM >= "131" > 59131 records selected to list 0. > > >SELECT WAREHOUSE WITH PRIM.BIN.NUM <= "139" > 2114 records selected to list 0.
(PRIM.BIN.NUM is indexed) Wol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 09/11/2006 09:41:07 AM: > Just a quick guess as to what's happening ... > The selects that fail are using the index and ignoring the > justification :-( I agree that the first select appears to be using the index alphabetically (and LIST.INDEX confirms the text index), while the second select uses the attribute numerically. That would explain the different results. However, it doesn't explain why both of these statements return the incorrect (larger) list: >SELECT WAREHOUSE WITH PRIM.BIN.NUM <= "139" AND WITH PRIM.BIN.NUM >= "131" >SELECT WAREHOUSE WITH PRIM.BIN.NUM >= "131" AND WITH PRIM.BIN.NUM <= "139" PRIM.BIN.NUM is a V-type field with a display format of 14L, so it should be treated as left-justified. Regardless, I would expect the joint selection should be either pure numeric or pure alphabetic! Hence, my frustration. Please note that since we're using SB+, we're in Pick Flavor. --Tom Pellitieri Century Equipment ------- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
