asked on

Limitation to Switch Statement

Experts. I have a query with multiple switch function statements. Below is one of those statements. Just recently I'm trying to add the tblProperty.RL_PC1 = 54.... and it's giving me a too complex error.

In searching the web I'm reading that there isn't a limit in the switch function. Anyone have any alternatives to this kind of statement. It used to be a nested iif statement. That got too complex so I changed it to a switch statement. Now that's too complex. I've considered a table and using lookup function but I'm under a time crunch and a quick fix in the mean time. Any ideas?

Switch(tblProperty.RL_PC1=65,([1Occ50]*0.65*2*0.025)-0.5,tblProperty.RL_PC1=60,([1Occ50]*0.6*2*0.025)-0.5,tblProperty.RL_PC1=57,([1Occ50]*0.57*2*0.025)-0.5, tblProperty.RL_PC1=54,([1Occ50]*0.54*2*0.025)-0.5, tblProperty.RL_PC1=53,([1Occ50]*0.53*2*0.025)-0.5,tblProperty.RL_PC1=50,([1Occ50]*0.5*2*0.025)-0.5,tblProperty.RL_PC1=45,([1Occ50]*0.45*2*0.025)-0.5,tblProperty.RL_PC1=40,([1Occ50]*0.4*2*0.025)-0.5,tblProperty.RL_PC1=35,([1Occ50]*0.35*2*0.025)-0.5,tblProperty.RL_PC1=33,([1Occ50]*0.33*2*0.025)-0.5,tblProperty.RL_PC1=30,([1Occ50]*0.3*2*0.025)-0.5,tblProperty.RL_PC1=28,([1Occ50]*0.28*2*0.025)-0.5,tblProperty.RL_PC1=25,([1Occ50]*0.25*2*0.025)-0.5,tblProperty.RL_PC1=20,([1Occ50]*0.2*2*0.025)-0.5,tblProperty.RL_PC1=100,([1Occ50]*2*0.025)-0.5) AS 0Rent1,

ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION

Dale Fye

membership

This solution is only available to members.

To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.

Start Free Trial

Dale Fye

BTW, It is really easy to spot the similartities when you format the statement like:

Switch(
tblProperty.RL_PC1=65,([1Occ50]*0.65*2*0.025)-0.5,
tblProperty.RL_PC1=60,([1Occ50]*0.6*2*0.025)-0.5,
tblProperty.RL_PC1=57,([1Occ50]*0.57*2*0.025)-0.5,
tblProperty.RL_PC1=54,([1Occ50]*0.54*2*0.025)-0.5,
tblProperty.RL_PC1=53,([1Occ50]*0.53*2*0.025)-0.5,
tblProperty.RL_PC1=50,([1Occ50]*0.5*2*0.025)-0.5,
tblProperty.RL_PC1=45,([1Occ50]*0.45*2*0.025)-0.5,
tblProperty.RL_PC1=40,([1Occ50]*0.4*2*0.025)-0.5,
tblProperty.RL_PC1=35,([1Occ50]*0.35*2*0.025)-0.5,
tblProperty.RL_PC1=33,([1Occ50]*0.33*2*0.025)-0.5,
tblProperty.RL_PC1=30,([1Occ50]*0.3*2*0.025)-0.5,
tblProperty.RL_PC1=28,([1Occ50]*0.28*2*0.025)-0.5,
tblProperty.RL_PC1=25,([1Occ50]*0.25*2*0.025)-0.5,
tblProperty.RL_PC1=20,([1Occ50]*0.2*2*0.025)-0.5,
tblProperty.RL_PC1=100,([1Occ50]*2*0.025)-0.5
) AS 0Rent1,

Another way to look at that (if those multipliers had not been equal to [RL_PC1]/100, you might have tried:

SWITCH(tblProperty.RL_PC1 = x, y,
tblProperty.RL_PC1 = z, a) * [1Occ50] * 2 * .025 - 0.5

Where you would not have the entire function evaluated inside the switch, you would simply identify the value of the multiplier.

Lastly, you could create a lookup table with the values of RL_PC1 and Multiplier and either use DLOOKUP to lookup the value of the Multiplier for a given value of [RL_PC1], or better yet, join the lookup table to the rest of your query on the RL_PC1 field and simply use the multiplier in the equation.

acramer_dominium

ASKER

Thank you for the suggestion! I would still need the if statement to check for the PC_1 value (65,60,57,etc).

How would that factor into: 0Rent1: (([tblProperty].[RL_PC1 / 100) * [1Occ50] * 2 * .025) - 0.5

Dale Fye

Based on the values in your SWITCH statement, you don't need to check for the value of [RL_PC1], you simply need to divide that value by 100

Notice that when RL_PC1 = 65, the multiplier (value right behind [1Occ50] is .65, same for RL_PC1 = 57, value is .57, so all you need to do at least for this particular SWITCH statement is remove the switch and replace it with a single function.

ORent1: [tblProperty].[RL_PC1] / 100 * [1Occ50] * 2 * .025 - 0.5

You don't really need any parentheses in there because of the precedence of numeric operators.

acramer_dominium

ASKER

I see what you are saying. I will give that a shot and let you know how it turns out.

Thank you!!

acramer_dominium

ASKER

This worked perfectly for what I needed. I inherited this from a previous programmer and didn't see that scheme throughout the statements.

THANK YOU!

Dale Fye

Glad I could help.