|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
This SQL link will be great because the only real problem for me in
exporting historical fundemental data to a .txt file and reading it is
... it's slow. I assume by putting the data into a sql database
where we can look up data for a specific ticker instead of having to
read through the text file for each ticker - this will be much faster.
Mike
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "brian.z123" <brian.z123@xxx> wrote:
>
> Tomasz,
>
> Thanks in advance for addressing the needs of historical fundamental
> data users and providing SQL access as promised at the feedback
> centre.
>
> Brian.
>
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Tomasz Janeczko" <groups@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Yahoo offers current values only for fundamentals.
> >
> > If you want history, you would need to build it by yourself.
> > This should be pretty easy using exploration, CSV output and
> external SQL database.
> >
> > The plugin for external SQL databases will be released soon so the
> last missing piece of puzzle
> > will be available.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Tomasz Janeczko
> > amibroker.com
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Steve Kuball
> > To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 7:18 AM
> > Subject: [amibroker] institutional ownership?
> >
> >
> > I was wondering if you have gotten any response on your question?
> > It is also something I have been watching but through a
> different medium called star trader. Would you please inform me of
> any information you get on institutional ownership?
> > Steve Kuball
> > stevekub101161@
> >
> > Don Lindberg <dlindber@> wrote:
> > Is there a way to get this data on a historical basis. I want
> to build
> > an indicator based on the %Owned by Institutions that would
> show
> > ownership at any choosen point in time. Is this possible, or
> am I
> > limited to current day?
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
> > Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically
> different. Just radically better.
> >
>
|