RE: v5r4 SQL Metadata Column names

["Coy Krill" <coyk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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