counting real records

scooter6 at gmail.com scooter6 at gmail.com
Mon Aug 12 12:01:32 PDT 2013


This worked perfectly - just need to add balances to it but I think this
will do the trick
Keep you posted
thanks Bruce

Scott


On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Bruce Easton <bruce at stn.com> wrote:

> On 8/12/13 1:20 PM, scooter6 at gmail.com wrote:
> > Actually, in my example there are 4 'physical' records  (1234-0001 and
> > 1234-0002-1, 1234-0002-2, 1234-0002-3)
> > But for purposes of what I need to calculate it should only be 2
> > records.....so yes, regardless of how many -1  -2 -3 ,etc that are on the
> > end of the full acct number, it should only count the 'record' as 1
> entity
> > So, let's suppose I have the following accounts for client number 1234:
> >
> > 1234-0001                         Bal Due  150.00
> > 1234-0002-1                     Bal Due   200.00
> > 1234-0002-2                     Bal Due   200.00
> > 1234-0002-3                     Bal Due         .00
> > 1234-0003                        Bal Due   800.00
> > 1234-0004                        Bal Due   500.00
> > 1234-0005-1                     Bal Due   300.00
> > 1234-0005-2                     Bal Due         .00
> > 1234-0006                        Bal Due      50.00
> > 1234-0007                        Bal Due    150.00
> > 1234-0008-1                     Bal Due          .00
> > 1234-0008-2                     Bal Due          .00
> > 1234-0008-3                     Bal Due    100.00
> > 1234-0008-4                     Bal Due          .00
> >
> > The report I'm trying to create should show there are:     8 records
>  (0001
> > thru 0008) even though several have -1, -2 etc
> > and it should only calcluate the balance once for each of the 8 records
> > with today bal due of 2250.00 (keeping in mind, it needs to look at all
> -1,
> > -2, etc in case only one of them has a bal due.  So, in case of
> 1234-0008-1
> > thru -4, typically the original total bal due would probably have been
> > 400.00, and -1, -2 and -4 paid their 1/4 of orig bal due, so -3 still
> owes
> > 100.00
> > So what I want is a report of total 'active' entities (not physical
> > records) that have a balance and the total of the balances.  So it should
> > count those records without any 'associate' people as 1 record (i.e.
> > 1234-0001, 1234-0003, 1234-0006 and 1234-0007 - obviously those are easy
> > because it's just one person to that account number -- the issue is not
> > counting 1234-0008-1 thru 1234-0008-4 as 4 records - just should be one
> > record...and only grab the balance due once
> > Hope that helps
> > thanks
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Kenneth Brody <kenbrody at spamcop.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/12/2013 11:21 AM, scooter6 at gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Should seem simple but let me explain...
> >>>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>   Some records will only have 1 person associated with it
> >>> i.e.  1234-0001  John Smith   Balance  150.00
> >>> So, field 1 = 1234
> >>> Field 2 = 0001
> >>> Field 3 = 1234-0001
> >>>
> >>> Some records will have multiple people associated with it
> >>> i.e. 1234-0002-1  John Smith   Balance  200.00
> >>>         1234-0002-2  Mary Smith   Balance 200.00
> >>>         1234-0002-3  Billy Smith    Balance       .00  (paid their
> portion)
> >>>
> >>> In each case, each one of those should ONLY count as '1' record
> >>>
> >>> What I'm trying to do is get a count for all records, soley based on
> first
> >>> 9 digits
> >>> So, if I run processing for client 1234, using the above example, it
> >>> should
> >>> show me I have 2 records (1234-0001 and 1234-0002, regardless that
> >>> 1234-0002 has -1 -2 and -3 associated with it.
> >>> Each of these will also have a balance associated with them.  I'm only
> >>> wanting to pickup the balance 'once' for each of these records, even if
> >>> one
> >>> of the '-1, -2' etc has a zero balance.
> >>>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> Why should those 3 records count as only 2?  If you were shown those
> >> records and told to manually count them, by what process would you
> arrive
> >> at "2"?
> >>
> >> Is it purely the fact that client number "1234" has records with "0001"
> >> and "0002", regardless of how many "0001" and "0002" records exist?  Or
> is
> >> there some other calculation involved?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Kenneth Brody
> >>
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL:
> http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/filepro-list/attachments/20130812/fa5aad84/attachment.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > Filepro-list mailing list
> > Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Subscription Changes
> > http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
> >
> Try output processing like this:
>
>    1  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -
>         ? If:
>         Then: end
>    2  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -
>         ? If:
>         Then: ad(7,.0,g)
>    3  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -
> @wbrk1 ? If:
>         Then: ad=ad+"1"; end
>    4  -------   -   -   -   -   -   -
> @wbrk2 ? If:
>         Then: print; ad=""; end
>
> to go with an output format defined as looking similar to this:
>
>       - - -    SUBTOTAL BY REC  - - -
>
>        - - -    SUBTOTAL BY CLIENT   -
>    *1              *ad
>
> and sort for the output format like this:
>
>
>        Sort Field:   1      2
>            Length:    4     4
>     Descending:
> Subtotal Field:    x?    x?
>
> ===========
> (no sort/selection prc needed)
>
> Bruce
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Subscription Changes
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/filepro-list/attachments/20130812/c023a575/attachment.html 


More information about the Filepro-list mailing list