RE: SETLL in SQL ?

From: Paul Raulerson

Or you can design the application differently. Or use two queries, or
table up the starting records of
interest, or... any of a lot of different techniques. This is pretty much
a strawman argument, because
it is an argument built only to prove your point... <grin>

Gotta call bull**** on this, Paul. I'm not trying to prove anything, only
giving a real world example of something I do all the time, every day, that
requires positioning by key within an already-created view. You want to
call it a strawman, that's fine, but you're misusing the term and avoiding
the issue.

Anyway, this part of the thread has devolved from how to do something
(fact)
to whether you think it's silly (opinion), and at that point there are
diminishing returns.

That's mostly because you have a bit of attitude if anyone appears to be
challenging you, even when they are not. Read what I wrote - I really did
just ask you a question. You layered on the attitude mate. ;)

<laughing> *I* have attitude?!?!!? Oh, golly, please read the thread and
see who uses words like "silly" to describe the other person's opinion. Or
who told who to "go read up". Paul, I daresay you are one of the few people
on the list whose attitude meter can match mine. <grin>

What I asked was if the 400 supported scrollable cursors - which once I
spent the 20 minutes to dig in the docs, it does.

You didn't actually ask, you said "are you saying that..." which typically
denotes more of a rhetorical question. More importantly I didn't find it
necessary to answer it since scrollable cursors do not allow you to position
by key, which was the only point I initially made. I never said you
couldn't move backwards, and again, I ask you to find the post where I said
that, since it's the basis of your entire argument.

To quote me: "You cannot position a cursor by key. This is true in all
dialects of SQL."

Scrollable cursors offer several possible
solutions to the problem that you appear to have not considered.

Actually, I considered all of the options if you read my posts, including
what I consider the best solution, which is Walden's dual-cursor approach,
although it is still, in my opinion, not as good as a simple ISAM key.

And by the way, the phrase "you appear to not have considered" is not only
simply wrong factually, it is in my opinion dripping with attitude because
it has lots of implied negative judgment in it. Maybe you don't see it that
way, and it's simply our different uses of the English language that are
putting us a bit at odds.

Well, see, we agree after all. :)

As is usually the case when you get down to the hard facts.

Yup.

And let me reiterate the FACT:

"You cannot position a cursor by key. This is true in all dialects of SQL."

Is this correct or not?

It it's incorrect, I apologize, if it's correct, well, I'll let you decide
whether you want to do the civil thing.

Joe