Re: RE: SQL results different after upgrading IBM i -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: Re: RE: SQL results different after upgrading IBM i
From: John Yeung <gallium.arsenide@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2023 09:51:54 -0400
List-archive: <https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@lists.midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@lists.midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

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.

Follow-Ups:

Re: RE: SQL results different after upgrading IBM i , Buck Calabro

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 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.