×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
Thanks for your reply John
Maybe I kept this too simple, but yes, in this instance, the first record WILL be the master record.
Once I get the fundamental code in place, I have a LOT more to do.
Am I limited to SQL - if you have an RPG answer, then AWESOME
Alan Shore
Programmer/Analyst, Direct Response
E:AShore@xxxxxxxx
P:(631) 200-5019
C:(631) 880-8640
"If you're going through Hell, keep going" - Winston Churchill
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Yeung
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 1:55 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Using SQL to group records with similar elements
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Alan Shore <ashore@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Using record key 00001 as a starting point, I need to group all
records that have any of the non- blank values in any of the
occurrences, EXCLUDING those records that have OTHER none blank values
Does this mean the first record is always the "master" and the rest of the records can only be (1) grouped with the first record or (2) not grouped at all? Or is the situation more complicated?
Hopefully, what I am asking makes sense, AND is feasible As always,
any and all suggestions are welcome
Are you limited to SQL?
This is kind of a fun problem. :)
John Y.
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
midrange.com
