# 2136 Setting a Range and then a Filter Doesn't Change Logical Record Numbers to Reflect Filter

---

I have a table with 1000 records. When no range or filter is activated I get information about Recno/FilterRecCount like:

record #200 from 1000 (for example a record with data of John Smith)
record #201 from 1000
....

When I activate a filter like FirstName='John' and Name='Smith' (With 10 records in filter result) I get:

record #200 from 1000 (filter count: 10) //our initial John Smith
record #201 from 1000 (filter count: 10)

So far OK. But when I set a range first like Name='Smith' (25 records are in range) before activating any filter recordnumbers are changed like:

record #1 from 25
record #2 from 25
....
record #25 from 25

Record numbers for same physical record are changed to reflect total records in a range (range rec#200 from 1000 before range is now rec #1 from 25 in range).

But if I continue our range Name='Smith' with a filter FirstName='John' (10 records are in range and filter) I get

record #1 from 1000 (filter count: 10) //our initial John Smith
record #2 from 1000 (filter count 10)

Same physical record (our initial John Smith record) with Recno #200 (before range) is now record with #1 (in range and filter).

When only range was set information rec #1 from 25 was OK (reflecting only records in a range).

But after activating a range first and after that a filter information about recordnumbers like record #1 from 1000 are confusing.
Same physical record #200 (from 1000) is now record #1 (from 1000)...

This occurs both times - if FilterRecordCounts is set to true or false. Only FilterRecordNo is changed (of course) to follow FilterRecordCounts property.

Ranged table change recordnumbers but filtered table (after seting a range first) continues to use this changed recordnumbers from a range. Shouldn't recordnumbers (after activating a filter) be reverted back to original recordnumbers before seting a range?