Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!rpi!nyser!njin!princeton!phoenix!englandr
From: englandr@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Scott Englander)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Avoiding SET FILTER TO command
Summary: Use LOCATE and FOR instead
Message-ID: <9636@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 28 Jul 89 02:01:01 GMT
References: <472@uncmed.med.unc.edu>
Reply-To: englandr@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Scott Englander)
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 18

In article <472@uncmed.med.unc.edu> danielg@uncmed.med.unc.edu () writes:
>	I have a problem to which I *know* there is a simple answer.  I
>	have to locate a record in my database by two fields.  I have
>	tried SET FILTER TO the first, then using a FIND command to
>	pinpoint my record, but as you might expect, this is ** much too
>	slow ***. 

Let's say you want the record where field1 = x and field2 = y, where x
and y are expressions appropriate to the respective field type.  Then
all you need to do is

LOCATE FOR field1 = x .and. field2 = y

This might still take a while, but should be faster than SET FILTER TO.
Hope this helps.
-- 

                                               - Scott