>>Is this a limitation on I-types in SQL selects? >It would seem so based on your report. What does support have to say?
Seems like... VAR support is next port o' call. >> Has anyone come across this problem before and is there a work around? >I haven't, but I haven't tried large orderded SELECTs on four I-types. >> Alternatively, can someone suggest another way to do this using a single ReVise statement? >You said you could do it in RetrieVe; are you sure you can't use TOXML with that? I've used TOXML with LIST in 10.0.4 Yes, sure. TOXML doesn't "do" BREAK.ON/DET.SUP which is required for SQL DISTINCT equivalence. Ta muchly, S ********************************************************************** This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of addressed recipient(s). If you have received this email in error please notify the Spotless IS Support Centre (+61 3 9269 7555) immediately, who will advise further action. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer related viruses. ********************************************************************** ------- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
