-xpl

[GCC Consulting]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> filepro-list-bounces+gccconsulting=comcast.net at lists.celestial
> .com 
> [mailto:filepro-list-bounces+gccconsulting=comcast.net at lists.c
> elestial.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Easton
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 6:17 PM
> To: filepro list
> Subject: RE: -xpl
> 
> Richard Kreiss wrote Wednesday, December 12, 2007 4:42 PM:
> > To: 'filepro list'
> > Subject: Re: -xpl
> > 
> > 
> > Came across an interesting anomaly when doing the following 
> lookup to 
> > the next lowest.
> > 
> > File with index f build on master_code(10,nnn) and renewal(2,.0)
> > 
> > When I set lv=master_code&"99" (1234-1234599)
> >  44  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -  
> >  -   -   -
> >        ◄ If:
> >        Then: lookup sales = sales_journal  k=lv   i=C -npl
> >  45  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -  
> >  -   -   -
> >        ◄ If:         NOT sales
> >        Then:         GOTO post_tr
> > 
> > If there are 2 records using the master_code, one has renewal blank 
> > and the other has a value of 1.
> > 
> > I would expect that my lookup value would fail and get 
> 1234-12345 1.  
> > It actually gets 1234-12345 with renewal blank( not what I 
> expected).
> > 
> > Tested lv=master_code&"9" (1234-123459) This worked as expected.
> > 
> > Can anyone explain why the first lookup fails to properly find 
> > 1234-123451, when 1 is clearly less then 99.
> > 
> > Richard Kreiss
> > GCC Consulting
> >  
> 
> Richard - above you show two different indexes - c & f - could 
> that be the problem?   If not, have you tried rebuilding the 
> index that is used in the lookup?  Maybe it conked out.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> Bruce Easton
> STN, Inc.

Indexes are the same, my typo.

Richard