>I suggest building your strings using Transform() to make sure all fields are first converted to text. The following worked for me:

>lcString1 = 'count(pws_id + transform(' + field(3) + ') ;
>          + transform(' + field(4) + ') + transform(' ;
>          + field(6) + '))'
>lcString2 = 'pws_id, ' + field(3) + ', ' + field(4) + ', ' + field(6)
>select pws_id, &lcString1 kount ;
>   from r6mile ;
>   group by &lcString2 ;
>   having kount > 1

>For the test purposes, I used the Field() function to return the name of the field in the currently selected workarea so I would not have to manually type in the names of the fields.
>
Why count(*) would not be sufficient? If you have lots of fields, the result would be more than 255 chars, so it would not work.

>>Hi everyone,
>>
>>I have an application called De-Duper, which identifies duplicates in a table based on one field or combination of few fields. Once duplicates are identified, user can review them, combine, delete, edit, etc.
>>
>>My colleague, who was testing this application, made a suggestion: this application should identify complete duplicates (e.g. almost all fields should be identical), then delete all duplicate records except one.
>>
>>I have one solution in mind, but not sure, it's the best. Besides, it would not be Rushmore optimizable, so may take a long time.
>>
>>Ok, here is what I have in mind:
>>
>>Table has a RecNum Identifier field.
>>
>>1) Create a list of all fields, which should be checked (comma-delimited) in a string. This part is already done.
>>
>>2)

lcStr='select *, count(*) as cnt_dups from BldMstr group by '+m.lcFieldList+ ;
>>    ' having cnt_dups>1 into cursor curCompleteDups'
>>    strtofile(m.lcStr, m.lcTempPrg)
>>    compile (m.lcTempPrg)
>>    do (m.lcTempPrg)
>>    delete (m.lcTempPrg)
>>
>>3)  create similar string
>>    m.lcDelStr='field1=curCompleteDups.field1 and field2=curCompleteDups.field2"...
>>    lcStr='delete for '+m.lcDelStr+' and RecNum<>curCompleteDups.RecNum'
>>    create a temp program and execute it.

>>
>> Do you think, it's feassible? Or can you suggest a better approach?
>>
>> Thanks in advance.