On 4/25/2012 4:29 PM, Richard Kaye wrote: > Hi Rick, > > Isn't the use of ALL redundant when using the FOR scope in a REPLACE > statement as the FOR scope will force the replace to evaluate each row, > right? Unless you use FOR with REST? What is the locking scheme under those > conditions - header or record?
I believe you're right about the redundancy of the ALL clause with a FOR scope. I just do it out of old habit. -- Mike Babcock, MCP MB Software Solutions, LLC President, Chief Software Architect http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com http://fabmate.com http://twitter.com/mbabcock16 _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
