June 27, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Nope... gave credit where credit was due... I got lazy and said "heck, they probably don't have the right kind of index, anyway, so why bring it up?" You reminded me to make sure to "play the lottery" so you at least have the opportunity to win.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 28, 2007 at 1:25 am
wow!, you guys really get stuck in, don't you? I am the original poster and I posted a solution which worked for me. right after the one where I said I would get back to you. I used a WHERE field <>'' and that was enough for my data. For some reason my post was removed from the thread.
You're right Jeff, I don't have an index but looking at this, I guess I should start working smart.
At the moment I'm going for 'if it aint broke...'
July 2, 2007 at 11:31 pm
heh... you also bring up another great point... (maybe not intentionally)... If you do like you say with WHERE field <> '', it will inherently NOT find nulls because nulls can be compared against with <> unless you change the default settings on the database (bad idea). It's like having an implicit IS NOT NULL.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
July 3, 2007 at 7:50 am
I agree that it works with the default settings but I do not like to depend on the settings too much... Unless I am dealing with a very controlled environment (read it: I am controlling it )
---------------------------------------------
[font="Verdana"]Nothing is impossible.
It is just a matter of time and money.[/font]
Viewing 4 posts - 16 through 19 (of 19 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply
This website stores cookies on your computer.
These cookies are used to improve your website experience and provide more personalized services to you, both on this website and through other media.
To find out more about the cookies we use, see our Privacy Policy