× 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.


  1.  Home
  2. MIDRANGE-L
  3. October 2023

Re: RE: SQL results different after upgrading IBM i

On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 9:28 AM Buck Calabro <kc2hiz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

That's probably still not what Dave was looking for, but I agree that
is the most relevant piece of documentation.

Any reliance on a particular sequence *without* an ORDER BY clause is
fundamentally flawed, and that has been the case since the inception
of SQL.

John Y.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...
Follow-Ups:
Replies:
Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

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.