Done thanks!
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:01 PM, James Taylor <[email protected]>wrote: > No ticket for the SELECT NEXT VALUE FOR my_seq. Would you mind filing one? > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Dan Di Spaltro > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Thanks good idea with using the system table. Regarding your first >> suggestion James, It's pretty hard to use that when it's basically >> impossible to get the autogenerated value back, that was alluded to in a >> previous thread. Is there a ticket open for this already, I couldn't find >> anything. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -Dan >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:27 PM, James Taylor <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> We should support statements without any FROM clause for cases like >>> this. That way you could do something like this: >>> {code} >>> SELECT NEXT VALUE FOR my_seq; >>> {code} >>> In the meantime, there are a couple of workarounds: >>> - do the NEXT VALUE FOR in the UPSERT statement, as this is the most >>> common use case >>> - use a table where you know there will be rows, like the >>> SYSTEM.SEQUENCE table or the SYSTEM.CATALOG table. Best to put a LIMIT >>> clause on your SELECT so you don't select the entire table each time. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> James >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Dan Di Spaltro >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> So I created a new table and sequence. My typical pattern for that is >>>> selecting from the sequence using a table, but I noticed if the table is >>>> empty it doesn't select anything. While in practice this won't really be a >>>> problem but it's a pain when testing, is this intended behavior? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> -Dan >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dan Di Spaltro >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Dan Di Spaltro >> > > -- Dan Di Spaltro
