I think the LIMIT gets applied before the sort in RBase, whereas in SQL Server, the sort comes first, and then it returns the TOP n rows. The workaround in RBase is to create a view in descending order, then select the LIMIT = 10 from that view.
"MikeB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I don't think so. I think the view is the workaround. I haven't used it in >SqlServer, but I believe there is a Select Top n records where n is the >number and Top would be the functional equivalent of Desc. > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "William Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 4:18 PM >Subject: Re: Limit = with Order by Desc > > >> Unfortunately, it first takes the number of records you LIMIT and then >sorts >> those. Would a select with MAX do what you want? >> >> Bill Cook >> Kent WA USA >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "MikeB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 12:59 PM >> Subject: Limit = with Order by Desc >> >> >> > RB 65 Win/Dos. If I want to do a select or chose on a dataset say based >> on >> > an Int or Date col in descending order Then limit the number of >selections >> > with Limit = , the expected result would be the highest value Int or >Date, >> > but this is not the result. The workaround is a Temp View, etc. >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > > __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
