Additional help requested for question ID: 28683216

Just to put a little more emphasis on the logic to help understand better.

The data is structured in a way that if we use a company, lets say Company A, and then another company is used the data entry people will put some sort of version of 'LCF' in front of the old company and then enter the new company. So it would look like 'Company A L/C/F Company B' so I would need Company B returned from the function. And this can go on and on and on so I would always need the company after the last variation of LCF

The real issue is all the different variations of the LCF that is entered to look for.

So far we are looking for
"LCF", "-LCF", "L/C/F", "L/C/F,", "L.C/F/,", "L/C/F/", "L.C.F", "L.C.F.", "-L/C/F", "L/C/F-", "L-C-F", "LCF/", "L/C/F:", "LCF:", ".L/C/F", "L\C\F", "L\C\F:", ".L\C\F", ".L/C/F", "L C F", "LOST CONTENT FOR", "LABOR CONTRACTOR FOR:"

Sorry for not mentioning this in the first question

THANKS

I see the flaw in my original solution.  It required TWO LCF entries.  Let me see if I (or another Expert) can figure out a solution for 0 to many.

Ok Thanks slight

Johnson, the value passed in can have any number of LCF variations, literally....I want to return just the one value back so although what your function is doing does return the last value, The problem is that it will be just the one value sent to the function and that one value is the one that needs to be evaluated and then the last part of the string returned.

I hope that helps

Thanks
JK

>>The problem is that it will be just the one value sent to the function and that one value is the one that needs to be evaluated and then the last part of the string returned.


I don't understand this part of the statement.

It looked like johnsone's post did what you needed so I quit working on it.  What isn't it doing?

>>>  can have any number of LCF variations, literally..

you mean it can look like this?

"A LCF  B  L.C.F C  L/C/F  D"

and if so you want "D"  ?

Yes that is correct.....

Slight
>>I don't understand this part of the statement.
>> It looked like johnsone's post did what you needed so I quit working on it.  What isn't it doing?

I am actually double checking what he sent right now. Don't see the need for the UNION ALL so I have to do it without and will let you guys know...

>>Don't see the need for the UNION ALL

You don't need that.

That is just a CTE (WITH) to set up the test data.  That isn't part of what you need.

You just need the SELECT after that replacing the table and column with your actual tables.

It actually is working Johnson just let me do some additional testing and I will let you know...Thanks

Yeah johnsone I think you nailed it. I took out the UNION ALLs and tested it and it works great. Thank you for your help

Thank you very much

Thanks Slight

All I did was a slight modification of what slightwv posted on the first question.

The UNION ALLs were just there to generate the test data.  They aren't part of the processing.

I understand now that slight cleared it up for me...Im a little slow ;)