Correlating the record found with the fieldname

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2000

It keeps the original formatting. numero = 29910
interpreted = N
texte = Is there any way that, when a record is found, I can figure out whatfield in the database that record was found in? I have a database thatcontains about 300 date fields in it, and I am doing a group search onall the date fields at once. My customer wants to know what field thematching date was found in, so she can determine what jobs need done, orstages need complete. The search is suprisingly fast, but there are notvery many records yet. But, I don't know of any way to determine whatfield the match was found in. Anyone got any pointers?Also, can I expect any performance troubles once this database getspopulated, especially on this particular search? The entire databasecurrently has 338 fields, and most of them are date fields, and I needto search them all at once. Will this cause any problems?Thanks,Dennis-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to  Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

Re: Correlating the record found with the fieldname (Kenneth Grome 2000) Re: Correlating the record found with the fieldname (Dennis J. Bonsall, Jr. 2000) Re: Correlating the record found with the fieldname (Mike Davis 2000) Re: Correlating the record found with the fieldname (Kenneth Grome 2000) Correlating the record found with the fieldname (Dennis J. Bonsall, Jr. 2000)

Is there any way that, when a record is found, I can figure out whatfield in the database that record was found in? I have a database thatcontains about 300 date fields in it, and I am doing a group search onall the date fields at once. My customer wants to know what field thematching date was found in, so she can determine what jobs need done, orstages need complete. The search is suprisingly fast, but there are notvery many records yet. But, I don't know of any way to determine whatfield the match was found in. Anyone got any pointers?Also, can I expect any performance troubles once this database getspopulated, especially on this particular search? The entire databasecurrently has 338 fields, and most of them are date fields, and I needto search them all at once. Will this cause any problems?Thanks,Dennis-------------------------------------------------------------This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to  Dennis J. Bonsall, Jr.

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

pop up menu's (1998) breaking & sorting (2000) japanese characters (1997) RE: strip .0 off off IPaddress (1999) Grouping Fields in Context (1999) Major Security Hole (1998) Tab Charactor (1997) Install problem (Was Bad Install) (2003) my price won't move (1997) WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - [include] doesn't allow creator (1997) SiteGuard Use Question (1997) Nested tags count question (1997) Re1000001: Setting up shop (1997) Execute Applescript (1997) Comments in db? (1997) PIXO support (1997) FW: Runtime version ... (2003) WebCat2 - [format thousands] (1997) [WebDNA] An actual attempt to get WebDNA and MAMP Pro to work - (2018) test (2000)