Previously written: >Of possible interest to you is that many history files contain cost >information AT THE TIME of the transaction, while the cost master file >contains cost information AS OF RIGHT NOW so what you appear to be doing is >looking at historical data & applying current costs to them, which I consider >to be potentially misleading. That is correct. This is an exception report so we're looking for, among other things, items where the cost may vary for different facilities. I believe I've found the culprit in the ORDER BY being ignored. By slowly eliminating criteria and re-running the query it appears that an exception join with two like tables perhaps causes some kind of problem. In my opinion this should not occur since unique qualified fields are specified from each join. Even specifying a numeric sort field seems to be a futile attempt. The order in which the qualified fields are selected from the exception join does however affect the sort order. I'm still confused but am able to make the statement perform as required.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.