Greetings all. Our rule of thumb with Data Dictionary numeric elements is to make them delimited, and we define them using this example in the PxPlus manual:

So from that, we get that 999.99 is valid, but 9999.99 is too large, because the integer portion of the number is 6 minus 1 (the decimal point) minus 2 (the decimals), which is 3.

But when we consider the checkbox "Force Data Validation on Write/Update," the validation of the integer portion of the number -- using the above example -- appears to max out at 5 digits (decimal point separate), not 3. The documentation references the IOLIST directive for more detail about this data validation.

We're planning to expand our numerics so that, when exported to SQL, they are large enough to not cause an invalid number error of some kind. Does anyone know if the SQL validation follows the PxP validation rules?

I.e. if we have a 6.2 element, then it would accept a 99999.99 (or -99999.99), and by extension 999999.99 would cause an error?

Examples for illustration would be greatly appreciated. TIA,

Paula McKeever

CAI Software

*6.2: 6 represents total length of the field, including explicit signs and decimals, where applicable; 2 represents scaling factor or number of decimal places*

So from that, we get that 999.99 is valid, but 9999.99 is too large, because the integer portion of the number is 6 minus 1 (the decimal point) minus 2 (the decimals), which is 3.

But when we consider the checkbox "Force Data Validation on Write/Update," the validation of the integer portion of the number -- using the above example -- appears to max out at 5 digits (decimal point separate), not 3. The documentation references the IOLIST directive for more detail about this data validation.

We're planning to expand our numerics so that, when exported to SQL, they are large enough to not cause an invalid number error of some kind. Does anyone know if the SQL validation follows the PxP validation rules?

I.e. if we have a 6.2 element, then it would accept a 99999.99 (or -99999.99), and by extension 999999.99 would cause an error?

Examples for illustration would be greatly appreciated. TIA,

Paula McKeever

CAI Software