SQL query to search on a field that is "similar to a set" or "mask"?

Is it possible to use an SQL query to search on a field that is
"similar to a set" or "mask"?

Right, I know nothing of SQL. Am using D7 and v1.07/8. But if v2 is
required, it would be enough reason to upgrade. :-)

Below is best way I know to explain my question.

for example table fields:
GroupNum
FirstName
ASet
----proc/function
var
TargetName : String[15];
ANum : Integer;
Found : Boolean;
WorkSet : set of char;
begin
ANum := 1;
TargetName := 'Bozo';
WorkSet := ['C'];
//say a table record exists with fields containing:
// 1 for GroupNum
// Bozo for FirstName
// ABC for ASet - or maybe A-O, etc for ASet
Found := MyTable.Locate('GroupNum;FirstName;ASet',
VarArrayOf([ANum,TargetName,WorkSet]),
[loPartialKey,loCaseInsensitive]);
//?? a query instead of table.locate ??

if Found then
//do stuff
end;
---

My ASet/WorkSet field is the challenge.

The table holds 1 to several records with same group number and same for
FirstName and could hold more than one record with same ASet value. I only
need to find "a" record that matches the search. i.e. if more than one
exists finding the first is fine, just need to find a record.

I've not yet created the third field. That is the challenge. The 3rd field
needs to be able to hold a single char, several chars or a range of chars.
If necessary, this range "could" be listed char by char instead.

In any case, the query against the 3rd field, must only be "one" char where
the field might hold several chars.

I'm interested in any solution.

Thanks for any help.

Regards,
Jim
--

> I've not yet created the third field. That is the challenge. The 3rd
> field needs to be able to hold a single char, several chars or a
> range of chars. If necessary, this range "could" be listed char by
> char instead.

Can you show actual examples of what you mean here?


--

Eivind Bakkestuen
Nexus Database Systems

Hi,

Thanks, showed the best example of what I meant. <G> Granted it was perhaps
a poor example. But if a good example could have been shown I would have
known how to solve the puzzle.

In any case was a pitifully elementary question. Am past that now and moving
on.

I appreciate the response.

Cheers,
Jim
--