How to avoid Move Corresponding

[Former Member]

Hi All,

I have used Move-Corresponding in my code,which I want to avoid. Logic I have used is as follow:

I have 2  tables, table A and Table B.Now if there are 10 fields in table A ,then in table B there are those same 10 and 4 more fields.

After populating table A,I pass the values of those 10 fields to table B and update the value of the rest 4.

Code:

loop at <table A> into <wa_A>

     MOVE-CORRESPONDING <wa_A> to <wa_B>

        <WA_B>-field1 = <>.

         <WA_B>-field2 = <>.

         <WA_B>-field3 = <>.

         <WA_B>-field4 = <>.

          APPEND <wa_B> to <Table B>

ENDLOOP.

Please tell me a more efficient way of doing this.I want to avoid using Move Corresponding

Regards

[roberto_forti]

Hi Tanushree,

That sample not is a problem.

Following the link about move-corresponding.

http://help.sap.com/saphelp_46c/helpdata/en/34/8e732a6df74873e10000009b38f9b8/frameset.htm

Regards

[Former Member]

What is the issue with "MOVE-CORRESPONDING"?

Or if you know the sequence of the fields will also be same you can ASSIGN COMPONENT

Or you can individually get the NAMES of the internal table A and B and use ASSIGN (V_NAME) to <f1> and <f2> respectively and then <f2> = <f1> or just simply pass field by field without field symbols. But this would require more effort and the difference may not be that "efficient" also.

R

[Former Member]

Does all the fields in table A are character type? And the 10 fields in table B are in the same sequence as table A? If yes, then you could do the following.

loop at table_A into wa_A.

   wa_B = wa_A.

  wa_B-field1 = ...

  wa_B-field2 = ...

  wa_B-field3 = ...

  wa_B-field4 = ...

append wa_B to table_B.

endloop.

-Chandra

[Former Member]

Thanks everyone for the reply.

Actually one of my structure is of standard type pa0002 and other is a z type with 4 custome fields.

The 4 custom fields are also the primary key,so the order is different.

for eg:

struc A:

1

2

3

4

STRUC B:

1

2

a

b

c

3

4

d

Therefore I am using Move corresponding which is not that good performance wise.

Regards

[Former Member]

if it is just 4 fields why can't you just move them one by one?

[Former Member]

I have  just give an example.I have more than 100 fields in my table

[Former Member]

Ok fair enough.

I don't know why people say MOVE-CORRESPONDING is inefficient. As per me it is quite efficient in certain cases wher you just change the structures and it starts working. If MOVE-CORRESPONDING is inefficient then most of the middleware framework mainly CRM/ SRM middleware is inefficient as SAP uses it in lot of places .

If you still don't like it, did try for some logic using field symbols as I explained in my first post?

R

[Former Member]

There is no problem with MOVE-CORRESPONDING.

Remember: computer time is cheap. Programmer time is expensive.

Rob

[former_member184158]

Hi

I can not understand what is the problem of MOVE-CORRESPONDING

we can not live without MOVE-CORRESPONDING,

but suppose that if you have table1 ---> 30 fields

and table 2 has ---> 50  fields

intersection 5 fields, then you have to use field symobi for these 5 fields.

give me only one reason that you don't want to use MOVE-CORRESPONDING??

Regards

Ebrahim

[Former Member]

I have been told its not an efficient coding way,so I have been asked to avoid it in my project

[former_member184158]

Hi tanushree,

this is your opinion, any how, just try to use field symbol, I am really curious if there is a nother alternative for Move Corresponding.

[matt]

There is no alternative. There is no performance issue with move-corresponding. The OP has been wrongly informed. I can't see the point in this discussion continuing, so I am locking the thread.