;m not holding my breath. :)
Julian
_
From: Michael Segel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 5:29 AM
To: 'Derby Discussion'
Subject: RE: Large IN clause produces server error
Ok.
Sigh.
It's early in the mornin
If rewriting the query is not an option, what alternatives are there to
overcome this limitation?
What version of Derby are you using? (Apologies if you already said that
and I missed it). If you are using a version prior to 10.2, you should
definitely try 10.2, as there was a *lot* of work in t
-
*From:* Robert Enyedi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 15, 2006 2:47 AM
*To:* Derby Discussion
*Subject:* Re: Large IN clause produces server error
The query from the attached log file is:
UPDATE task_config_permission SET defau
problem with how derby handles the IN clause, but
this goes beyond that.
Sorry, HTH
_
From: Robert Enyedi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 2:47 AM
To: Derby Discussion
Subject: Re: Large IN clause produces server error
The query from the atta
The query from the attached log file is:
UPDATE task_config_permission SET default_value=NULL
WHERE task_type_id IN (SELECT id FROM task_type WHERE proj_id=?)
AND CAST(default_value AS INTEGER) NOT
IN(0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,
Can you provide the query?
1800 items in an IN clause?
That doesn't sound right or efficient.
Why not use a subselect?
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Enyedi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:51 AM
> To: Derby Discussion
> Subject: Large IN clause produce
