selection set problem

[John Esak]

Ken,
Is there any chance if he is setting PFIXS=ON and indexes being built on any
of these fields... would change the behavior.... Actually, I wouldn't think
so... But figured I would ask.   

> -----Original Message-----
> From: filepro-list-bounces+john=valar.com at lists.celestial.com 
> [mailto:filepro-list-bounces+john=valar.com at lists.celestial.co
m] On Behalf Of Kenneth Brody
> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:25 PM
> To: rkreiss at gccconsulting.net
> Cc: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subject: Re: selection set problem
> 
> Richard Kreiss wrote:
> > One of my clients tried to run the following selection set 
> and no records
> > were selected.
> > 
> > Field 25 (1,.0)  Values 0-9
> > field 14(4,.0) values 1000-4000 at present
> > 
> > the selection set:
> > 14 le 1088
> > 25 le 3
> > 
> > No records selected.
> > 
> > I changed the selection set to:
> > 14 ge 1
> > 14 le 1088
> > 25 ge 1
> > 25 le 3
> > 
> > This selected 17800 records.
> 
> (Was it the correct 17800 records?)
> 
> Well, if there are records where field 25 contains 0, as you 
> state above, 
> these two are not equivalent.  However, the first set should 
> be a superset 
> of the second.
> 
> > Both selection sets seem to be looking for the same data.  
> Why did set 1
> > fail and set 2 find the records wanted?
> 
> Short of a corrupted index, I can see no reason why the above 
> conditions 
> wouldn't select at least those same 17800 records for selection set 1.
> 
> -- 
> Kenneth Brody
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>