On May 7, 2010, at 5:15 PM, Kurt Wendt wrote:
> I'm surprised that ALL the fields must now be included in the GROUP BY
> specification. But, maybe this may ALSO have something to do with Matthew's
> response. I'm going to look into his suggestion to see how it may apply to my
> situation.
FWIW, all SQL requires that every non-aggregate field be included in
the GROUP BY. Fox was playing a bit fast and loose with the standard, using a
more-or-less random value for the non-grouped fields. In reality, that value is
undefined, and completely unreliable, so why would you want them in your
SELECT?
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
