Re: query problems / reading files -- MIDRANGE-L

I am also active in BPCS_L

>  5)  We have both the CMF and ITH.  I would be happy to look over these
>  queries for you.  Have you tried running these queries in debug mode,
>  (STRDBG)?  The little messages can be a real performance hint.

Thanks, but in this particular query what I need to do when my time permits 
is to replace it with a HLL program since the users want more out of it than 
you can really do efficiently in Query, or I should say I comfortable with.

I recognize that many limits of Query/400 can be circumvented by query to 
summary file then use that summary file as input to another query, and we are 
in fact doing a lot of that also.  

Perhaps the most useful like that in recent days is cost summary by item, for 
selected item classes to work files by facility then compare & only output 
what's different in the fields of relevance.  We have parts we manufacture in 
one facility for usage in others, like our extruded wire, plastic blocks, and 
simple leads.  In theory the total cost to make something in one factory is 
itemized by where the costs came from & that total should be cost of material 
for same item in another factory, but we have some discrepancies.

This has led to a decision to modify CST920 or CST940 - I not yet decided 
which, to permit cost transfers for ONE item class at a time, and a fix it 
program for CIC getting the right codes from IIM since the rules are 
different for facility that makes vs. facility that uses the same item #s.

The query, that I mentioned in my earlier post, is taking 100% ITH inventory 
transactions that are relevant to JIT shop order transactions for a user 
specified date range, which HAS the standard cost at the time of the 
transaction, but they want the standard cost NOW, so that is why it is linked 
to CMF, when I favor CIC summary cost, but there is also the difficulty of 
matching records when not all files have facility or warehouse (typically one 
or the other), and it is sequenced by department of the labor (wire cutting, 
ends terminating, plastic molding, etc.) and they are getting totals only 
scrap vs. production by facility by department, so the query logic is quite 
convoluted.

Now they want PPM (Parts per million) & scrap percentage in the report, but 
with Query/400 when you do a totals only, computed stuff is shown as an 
average of the column - an average of the percentages, not a recomputed 
figure based on what is in the totals, which is why I think this needs to be 
HLL.

Also, when they get this, they want to be able to select on the 
facility-department with the highest baddest percentage for the time period 
reviewed & drill down to what machines operators parts etc. responsible.

One of many things on my to do list.

MacWheel99@aol.com (Alister Wm Macintyre) (Al Mac)

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---