All of the databases I've used required the columns in the order by
clause also be present in the result set. It may not be universally true though
On 5/26/05, Cronos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems to me that MySQL and PostgreSQL are exhibitting some dubious
> guessing behaviour as to
It seems to me that MySQL and PostgreSQL are exhibitting some dubious
guessing behaviour as to which column it refers to, or perhaps they are
making some requirement of the order by to contain a column that is in the
resultset ??? If name were only in test11 then what would MySQL and
PostgreSQL do
You may be the person I've encountered who is able to perceive
Someone Else's Problem.
:)
-Tom
> -Original Message-
> From: Will Leshner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 10:58 AM
> To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
> Subject: Re: [sqlite]
On May 26, 2005, at 7:49 AM, Thomas Briggs wrote:
It's been our
experience that the only truly reliable way to avoid this problem
is to
be explicit.
I agree, and that's what I've always done up until now because it
never occurred to me that the SQL engine would be able to figure it
On May 26, 2005, at 7:23 AM, Gregory Letellier wrote:
try SELECT Test2.* FROM test2 inner join test11 ON
test2.id=test11.id ORDER By Name;
Thanks. I know there are ways to get the query to work. I think the
problem is when people are migrating over from another database
engine and they
try SELECT Test2.* FROM test2 inner join test11 ON test2.id=test11.id
ORDER By Name;
Will Leshner a écrit :
I guess I never really noticed this before (since I only use SQLite,
of course :) ). But consider a query like this:
SELECT test2.* FROM test2,test11 WHERE test2.id=test11.id ORDER
6 matches
Mail list logo
