Re: SQL Problem

Niall Litchfield wrote:
>

[]
>
> Indeed. Part of the argument for sending it back was that the reason these
> overlaps exist was that there was a known bug with the application (3rd
> party) and equally a known workaround which ensured that this would not
> happen. As you might imagine this sort of data also causes somewhat
> innacurate management information. The whole issue is resolved for the
> moment, and I have several scripts now which identify the problem records.
> (169 out of 4 million).
>
> Niall

Wish I had problems like that. My current issue scales a little differently.
I have one table with some "near duplicate" records (one field). One copy must be kept and the other removed. Problem is the second table which relates to the first must be updated first. And the second table must be coordinated with an external system running on a different DBMS. I'll be changing thousands of records in the second table in order to be able to clean up the first one.

Well, glad to see you got your problem solved.

 Enjoy!
  Ed Received on Mon Oct 08 2001 - 22:44:48 CDT