UPS furnishes a text file with ZipCode ranges associated with a service code (URC.txt). I need to split out the range into a service code DB with each individual ZipCode associated with a singular value for lookup-printing on a label. How can we automate this process as manually, its quite cumbersome and time-consuming and the file is updated periodically.

file resembles

"US","01051","01053"," MA 011 9-05"

"US","01054","01054"," MA 011 9-03"

"US","01056","01059"," MA 011 9-02"

"US","01060","01063"," MA 011 9-01"

Is there a convenient calculation to split out these ranges into a file with fields:

Country Zip Service Code

US 01051 MA 011 9-05

US 01052 MA 011 9-05

US 01053 MA 011 9-05

US 01054 MA 011 9-03

US 01056 MA 011 9-02

US 01057 MA 011 9-02

US 01058 MA 011 9-02

US 01059 MA 011 9-02

US 01060 MA 011 9-01

etc

Thanks in advance...Stephen

I need to split out the range into a service code DB with each individual ZipCode associated with a singular value for lookup-printing on a label.

Can you clarify your purpose? I am not sure what "lookup-printing on a label" means.

Sorry if I wasn't plain enough. I need to populate a FMP-DB with those three fields (Country, Zip, Service Code) so that I can use a lookup based on a ship-to zipcode in an address and from that lookup, populate a field on a UPS-approved shipping label. If its not necessary to split the range, but rather allow a lookup to use the range to find the Service code resultant - fine....Stephen

I think you can solve this very simply. Just add a calculation field (result is Text) to the same table where the imported data is =

Let ( [

v = SerialIncrement ( Extend ( StartZip ) ; Get ( CalculationRepetitionNumber ) - 1 )

]; 

Case ( v ≤ Extend ( EndZip ) ; v )

)

Set the number of repetitions to the highest expected range span. Then use this field as the matchfield for the lookup.

I'm wondering if the repeater method (which is cool, by the way) is more efficient

It used to be - I am not sure it still is. The truth is that you are absolutely right - I got side-tracked by the original question. I may not do things without reason, but that doesn't mean it's always the right reason. :