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.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.