On pxplus 15.10 debian version the below select statement does not return values from the record.
Pxplus 15.10 redhat version works properly.
What gives?
0010 open (hfn)"data/SO/SORSOH"; sorsoh=lfo
0020 select a0$,a5$,*,c5$,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,a4$ from sorsoh begin %a0$ end %a0$+%lc$
0030 print "Select returned '"+a0$+a5$+c5$+a4$+"'"
0040 print len(a0$+a5$+c5$+a4$)
0050 break
0060 next record
0100 read (sorsoh,key=%a0$,dom=*next)
0110 read (sorsoh,end=EOF)a0$,a5$,*,c5$,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,a4$
0120 print "Read returned '"+a0$+a5$+c5$+a4$+"'"
0130 print len(a0$+a5$+c5$+a4$)
0140 EOF:stop
-;
-;run
Select returned ''
0
Read returned '01033482IDBNN NNNN '
38
-;
I would suspect it has something to do with "end %a0$+%lc$" in the SELECT directive.
If you do the same without a end do you get the records for %a0$ plus whatever is after them?
If so you may just need to get the end correct.
I removed the end and get the same thing.
%a0$="01" is the company number and there are 11,000 + records that begin with "01"
%lc$=$8E$
As I said it works properly using the redhat version of pxplus.
-;list
0010 open (hfn)"data/SO/SORSOH"; sorsoh=lfo
0020 select a0$,a5$,*,c5$,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,a4$ from sorsoh begin %a0$
0030 print "Select returned '"+a0$+a5$+c5$+a4$+"'"
0040 print len(a0$+a5$+c5$+a4$)
0050 break
0060 next record
0100 read (sorsoh,key=%a0$,dom=*next)
0110 read (sorsoh,end=EOF)a0$,a5$,*,c5$,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,*,a4$
0120 print "Read returned '"+a0$+a5$+c5$+a4$+"'"
0130 print len(a0$+a5$+c5$+a4$)
0140 EOF:stop
-;?%a0$
01
-;run
Select returned ''
0
Read returned '01033482IDBNN NNNN '
38
-;
This may be a bug that results in undefined behavior. That may be why you see it at one install but not another.
Can you try a newer version of PxPlus? That version is out of support and there have been many improvements to the SELECT directive logic since then. It is possible if this is a bug that it already has been fixed.
Other thoughts is it may have to do with a difference between the two installs. Maybe there is a difference in system parameters or something that could explain it not working. The 'SO' system parameter perhaps?
Parameter 'SO' is off for both installs. We tried up to V17.10 with same results.
We will try V19 when we get new keys and I will let you know.