Stephen Gutknecht (SAPDB)
>
> I know nothing about your error...
>
> However, this SQL statement strikes me as unusual. How can
> "x + 1 = NULL"?
> Or am I reading this statement wrong? The HAVING clause
> seems to me to be
> using such logic.
>
> I almost never use HAVING, so perhaps I am not reading the statement
> correctly.
>
> Stephen
x + 1 can be NULL if x IS NULL.
Therefore the HAVING max(..) + 1 IS NULL has the same meaning as
HAVING max(..) IS NULL.
Unfortunately I have had no time to check the original problem.
I'll do that later.
Elke
SAP Labs Berlin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Buchinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 12:18 AM
> To: SapDB Maillisting
> Subject: Queries incompatible between 7.3.0.24 and 7.3.0.34??
>
>
> hello!
>
> i discovered the following problem when i was updating from
> 7.3.0.24 to
> 7.3.0.34 (on a redhat 9.0 maschine):
>
> in 7.3.0.24 the following query worked without problems:
>
> SELECT max(id) + 1 newId FROM table HAVING NOT max(id) + 1 IS NULL
>
>
>
> in 7.3.0.34 the same query results in an error: "Column must
> be in group
> column: NEWID
>
> why should i put a column which is part of an aggregate-function into
> group columns?
> but no matter which columns i put into "group by", SapDB always
> complains about missing group columns.
>
> has anyone an explanation?
>
> thanks for your answers,
>
> patrick
>
> _______________________________________________
> sapdb.general mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://listserv.sap.com/mailman/listinfo/sapdb.general
> _______________________________________________
> sapdb.general mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://listserv.sap.com/mailman/listinfo/sapdb.general
>
_______________________________________________
sapdb.general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://listserv.sap.com/mailman/listinfo/sapdb.general
