× 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.



yes we did just upgrade to 7.1 - I will try the inner join.
at the moment I created a temp file with the data needed via a simple RPG
MOVEL )

so I could push the report to the user.


On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:21 PM, CRPence <CRPbottle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 04 Oct 2013 07:08, Hoteltravelfundotcom wrote:
SELECT
T01.OHORDD, T01.OHORDT
, T01.OHJOB3, T01.OHORD#
, T01.OHOSTC, M.MHZONE
FROM ASTDTA.OEORHDOH T01
LEFT OUTER JOIN
SHP4VAR27F.MFH1MH M
ON T01.OHORD# = left(M.MHORDR, 8)
WHERET01.OHORD#='02576661'

<<SNIP>> it does run and returns all data except our elusive zone.


FWiW: There was a defect a few releases and several years back ['07
to '08 timeframe] wherein the use of the SUBSTR scalar [or presumably,
an effectively equivalent] in a join predicate [as-implemented; i.e.
irrespective as-coded] produced incorrect output. However in this
message thread, there was mention of v7r1 in use.? Even if not using
IBM i 7.1, hopefully not using any system that is running with any
cumulative level as old or older than C90##vrm.?

Regardless of release\cumulative... It is entirely possible that
there is a defect being encountered, in fact seemingly probable, per the
evidence already given that suggests a matching row does exist in the
MFH1MH file:
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/201310/msg00126.html

Yet given such nebulous descriptions as "returns all data except...",
an apparent lack of ability to give an explicit explanation as to what
specific data and why, with regard to the expected output, gives me
little confidence, probability-wise, whether the issue might be defect
vs usage.

FWiW: An INNER JOIN could be attempted instead, to reveal if there
might be a problem specific to the OUTER JOIN implementation. While the
scalar subselect is likely implemented the same as the OUTER JOIN,
again, a difference in the effect from using that subquery could reveal
a problem specific to the use of the OUTER JOIN syntax.

--
Regards, Chuck
--
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.



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

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

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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.