selection set problem

[John Esak]

Well, just for the heck of it... How come you don't have PFIXS=ON.  It is
one of the most important vars for filePro.  At least, I wouldn't consider
running any systems without it on. The difference in running most reports
and selsets in IUA is pretty staggering...  Like night and day.

John
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: GCC Consulting [mailto:gccconsulting at comcast.net] 
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 10:29 AM
> To: john at valar.com; 'Kenneth Brody'; rkreiss at gccconsulting.net
> Cc: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subject: RE: selection set problem
> 
> John,
> 
> Not set.
> 
> Richard
> 
> > -----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 John Esak
> > Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 12:50 AM
> > To: 'Kenneth Brody'; rkreiss at gccconsulting.net
> > Cc: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> > Subject: RE: selection set problem
> > 
> > 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
> > >
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Filepro-list mailing list
> > Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> > http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>