I have been working on a sql statement all afternoon and it is
starting to make me seriously doubt my abilities. I have a table,
glentrdth which has some records I from which need to get records out
for period 13 year 2009. However, this table only contains a glseq
field which should correspond to records in another table called
glentrdt which have the period, year, and glseq records in them. I
also need to match these records with records in a table called
armast to get a field called warehouse matching these records up based
on invno value of both tables. Now this seems easy to me however
every syntax I've tried yields four records for every one record I
need. I know this may not make a lot of sense without access to the
data but I'd really appreciate it if anyone would look at the sql
statement below and tell me if anything obviously wrong jumps out at
them:
SELECT glentrdth.glaccnt, glentrdth.glseq, glentrdth.glamount,
glentrdth.invno, glentrdth.custno, glentrdt.year,glentrdt.period,
armast.warehouse ;
FROM t:\visprod\data06\glentrdth, t:\visprod\data06\armast,
t:\visprod\data06\glentrdt ;
WHERE glentrdth.invno = armast.invno AND glentrdth.glseq =
glentrdt.glseq AND glentrdt.year = '2009' AND glentrdt.period = '13'
AND glentrdth.glaccnt = '60120- ' ;
INTO CURSOR junk
this last iteration is going back to fox 2.6 syntax but I am working
in vfp 9 so I'm not opposed to the newer join syntax it just wasnt
getting me any better results. any help would be appreciated.
-Jeff
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
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/bf974cff1001131408y697755a5p467a597cfd97e...@mail.gmail.com
** 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.
