browse lookup - spped up selection

[Dennis Malen]

My initial browse lookup is a Collector code.

My drop processing is as follows:

1. Closed records
2. Follow Up date is less than today.
3. Not equal to a particular status code.
4. No telephone numbers in all of 4 fields.

That is the sequence.

I am going to test Ken's suggestion. I did not get an error when I put in a 
name of a selection format.

Never knew this existed.

Dennis Malen
516.479.5912
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dennis Malen" <dmalen at malen.com>
To: <gccconsulting at comcast.net>; <filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: browse lookup - spped up selection


> Richard,
>
> Thanks! I am not using drop all, just drop. I will also take a further 
> look as to the sequence of the conditional drop commands.
>
> Dennis Malen
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "GCC Consulting" <gccconsulting at comcast.net>
> To: "'Dennis Malen'" <dmalen at malen.com>; 
> <filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 10:29 AM
> Subject: RE: browse lookup - spped up selection
>
>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: filepro-list-bounces at lists.celestial.com
>>> [mailto:filepro-list-bounces at lists.celestial.com] On Behalf
>>> Of Dennis Malen
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 5:56 PM
>>> To: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
>>> Subject: browse lookup - spped up selection
>>>
>>> This probably was discussed before.
>>>
>>> When a browse lookup is used the first part of the setup is
>>> to define how you are looking the information in the target
>>> file. At that point there is an option for the use of only
>>> one index selection.
>>>
>>> The browse lookup utility then allows you to create
>>> processing in conjunction with your lookup that has many
>>> different criteria. If the processing does not match one can
>>> use a drop command etc.
>>>
>>> The problem in that approach is that the lookup takes a very
>>> long period of time as every record that meets that criteria
>>> is chosen in the index. As every record gets a match there
>>> may be 5 other criteria that has to be reviewed in the
>>> processing table to determine whether it should be shown on
>>> the browse lookup screen or deleted (dropped).
>>>
>>> Using a selection format is obviously a lot quicker.
>>>
>>> Is there any way to speed up the process using a browse lookup.
>> Dennis,
>>
>> I use this technique quite often.  Since you haven't posted your 
>> processing,
>> I'll ask a couple of questions.
>>
>> On what key(s) is your index built?
>>
>> Are you using and drop all before or drop all after?
>>
>> Are you using drop all
>>
>> I read Ken's response and what he is indicating is the sequence of your
>> drops.  This is very important.
>>
>> You want to have the most critical drop first.  One that will just drop 
>> the
>> record without further testing.
>>
>> I have found, for instance, that where I am doing a browse on a 
>> particular
>> person's employee #, using:
>> If: emp_num lt 19
>> Then: drop all before;END
>> If: emp_num gt 19
>> Then: drop all after;end
>>
>> After some testing I found that the above is faster then
>>
>> if:emp_num ne 19
>> Then: drop all;end
>>
>> I have timed this and can't tell you why, even with the employee # being 
>> the
>> lookup value, but there is a significant difference.
>>
>> In my processing, the additional drop criteria have to do with a status
>> code, age and date last called.
>>
>> This program is being used through terminal server and the performance is
>> very good.
>>
>> If you would like a copy of this, let me know off list.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>
>
>