Re: RE: SQL results different after upgrading IBM i -- MIDRANGE-L

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Subject: Re: RE: SQL results different after upgrading IBM i
From: Buck Calabro <kc2hiz@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 09:28:00 -0400
List-archive: <https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@lists.midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

On 10/6/2023 8:48 AM, Dave wrote:

Thanks, I knew I was going to get that reply and I know that the ORDER BY
clause should be added, but that wasn't what I was asking.
There is definitely a difference in behaviour and I think it must be
documented somewhere.

'If the ORDER BY clause is not specified, the rows of the result table have an arbitrary order.'

https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/i/7.4?topic=subselect-order-by-clause

SQL Reference > Queries > Subselect > order-by-clause

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: RE: SQL results different after upgrading IBM i , John Yeung

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.