Re: v5r4 SQL Metadata Column names

[Bruce <bruce@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Correct, in v5r3 flipping the union clause will also return 0001 and 
0002.  But, the original that has the actual columns selected, will 
return the column name even without specifying the name.

We've not being using the field naming on our sql.  Our app relied on 
the column name in the metadata being returned for additional behavior. 
 That's why I'm looking for a one-size-fits all solution so I don't 
have to go back and mod all the sql.

For grins, what if you ran the orig query over your v5r3 machine?  Do 
you get 0001 or QQParm as the col name?

BruceJ

Coy Krill wrote:
> We're on V5R3 and we noticed early on that if you didn't have the fields
> named the same then you got the 00001 and 000002 for field names. We do
> the following so that the names are brought back:
>
> select 'Bad' qqparm,'ColNames' qqval from QSYS.QAQQINI 
> Union
> select qqparm, qqval from QSYS.QAQQINI 
>
> We've been doing this for over a year on V5R3. And I just ran a quick
> test and I got the same results as you specify for V5R4. Perhaps you too
> had been naming the fields on your unions? Worth checking.
>
> Coy Krill
> Systems Analyst
> Whidbey Island Bank
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: java400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:java400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 06:22
> To: java400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: v5r4 SQL Metadata Column names
>
> I've noticed a difference with the way column headings are returned in 
> the metadata when using a UNION in an sql statement.
>
> select qqparm, qqval from QSYS.QAQQINI 
> union
> select 'Bad','ColNames' from QSYS.QAQQINI 
>
> For v5r4 the column names are 0001 and 0002.
> For v5r3 the column names are QQPARM and QQVAL
>
> Anybody else seen this behavior and have a workaround?  Right now, the 
> solution to add "as qqparm" to the second union (n+) is unacceptable.
>
> Thanks,
> Bruce