[snip] I would be deliriously happy if someone could explain WHY these statement _should_ have different results. If I am wrong and these UPDATE statements are supposed to provide different results, I would like to learn how I became so confused over something this fundamental. Until I get credible information to the contrary, I will stick with the hypothesis that this is a BUG in the execution engine. [/snip]
Shawn, what makes an InnoDB table different from any other type of table with regards to the way UPDATE is processed? When you issue a multi-table update you must adhere to the properties of JOINs, hence they must be in the correct order. For reference, pages 234-236 of Paul DuBois' MySQL - Second Edition describe the importance of JOINs in the context of multi-table updates and deletes. Paul specifically mentions MySQL versions 4.x.x concerning these operations. Regardless of this being transactional the JOIN order is still important, because a transaction only fails or rollsback if all of the statements do not complete. In the OPs case the transaction did complete, one table was updated, negating the conditions for the second table's update. Updates occur in order of the JOIN. This would not be a bug IMHO. If you believe it to be you need to submit it to the powers that be for a response/resolution. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
