Replacing the old value with new value on the website

Question

Hi ,
I have two input fields CLIN # and PR#.When i enter the text,for the first it is working fine,second time when i enter it is replacing the value which i enter with the first one.I should not replace the old value.
ex:
Example when i enter test5 for the first time
CLIN # :Test 5
Next when i enter Test6 ,this value replaces the first one
CLIN#: Test6
CLIN#:Test6(there is no test5)
I am doing for my istore application.Any ideas

Answer 1

As the user that created the anonymous block ruun:
select count(*) from general_acct_mast_table;
and
select tbaadm.count(*) from general_acct_mast_table;I strongly suspect that they are actually two different tables, and the tbaadm version is substantially larger that the non-qualified one.
In any case I would not be doing this as a row-by-row procedure. I would create two lookup tables like:
create table masked_general as
select acid, foracid, round(dbms_random.value(81000000,85000000)) masked
from (select distinct acid, foracid
      from general_acct_mast_table
      where acct_ownership not in ('O'));
create table masked_stmnt as
select * from masked_general;
alter table masked_general add constraint masked_general_pk
   primary key (acid);
alter table masked_stmnt add constraint masked_stmnt_pk
   primary key (foracid);Then do the updates as:
update (select g.foracid, g.acid, gm.masked
        from general_acct_mast_table g
           join masked_general gm
              on g.acid = gm.acid)
set foracid = masked;
update (select s.foracid, sm.masked
        from mini_stmnt_details_table s
           join masked_stmnt sm
              on s.foracid = sm.acid)
set foracid = masked;Note that this assumes that both acid and foracid are individually unique in general_acct_mast_table, which seems to be implied by your procedure, and that you want to be able to roll the whole thing back if there are problems (that is, you do not want to commit between the update of general_acct_mast_table and mini_stmnt_details_table).
I would also probably a a verification step after creating the first masked table to ensire that you did get unique vluaes back fo the masked column.
John