×
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.
Birgitta helped me with my issue earlier with this expression -
ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY refcod, change_ts) rownum -
I needed to use PARTITION BY.
Now I was trying to figure out what it has been working for over 2
years, and I think I know maybe why - SQL does not guarantee the order
of the returned rows.
OK, I think I have an answer -
1. SQL doesn't guarantee order, so even RRN might not be honored
2. If when using ROW_NUMBER OVER(ORDER BY REFCOD, CHANGE_TS) I
don't specify the PARTITION BY, SQL thinks the entire result set is the
a. Then the order of that partition could be different from run
to run
3. If using PARTITION BY REFCOD, then there is a set for each
REFCOD and there is a row number for each row there, based on order of
CHANGE_TS
I just checked, and the table in question has REUSEDLT(*YES) - hence,
the order without partitioning is topsy-turvy!!
Does that make sense?
Lesson learned, I think.
Cheers
Vern
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
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.
midrange.com
