But are you using the same time frame as Emerald? I would guess that
your time periods don't match the ones from the Call History table,
which is where the discrepency comes in to play.
> The CallHistory contains the following entries for the records shown
> above. I have added the AcctSessionTime from the Calls table.
>
> AccountID StartDate Months Mins
> Calls ChargeID AcctSessionTime
> ----------- --------------------------- ----------- -----------
> --------- ----------- -----------------
> 992 Jul 22 1999 12:00AM 1 1509
> 159 1408 137,964
> 1664 Jul 14 1999 7:58PM 1
> 675 29 (null) 150,389
> 2634 Jul 14 1999 7:58PM 1 1339
> 55 1456 165,530
> 3383 Jul 18 1999 12:00AM 1 8061
> 342 1518 1,176,051
>
> Since Emerald rounds off each call to the defined interval, I suppose
> I'm losing &/or gaining some time in the process. A smaller interval
> will give more accurate figures?
> If the interval is 3600 seconds, how will it round off the figures
> listed below? I didn't quite understand how it works.
Actually, that was my mistake. 2.2 used to do that. 2.5 adds the
seconds and then rounds to the next interval.
--Dale E. Reed Jr. Emerald and RadiusNT__________________________________________IEA Software, Inc. www.iea-software.com
For more information about this list (including removal) go to:http://www.iea-software.com/support/maillists/liststart