db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rick Post (JIRA)" <derby-...@db.apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (DERBY-147) ERROR 42X79 not consistant ? - same column name specified twice
Date Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:21:44 GMT
     [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-147?page=comments#action_59231 ]
     
Rick Post commented on DERBY-147:
---------------------------------

I tested a similar query on Oracle9i rel 2 and Oracle accepts this syntax and returns an ordered
result set.

> ERROR 42X79 not consistant ? - same column name specified twice
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>          Key: DERBY-147
>          URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-147
>      Project: Derby
>         Type: Bug
>     Reporter: Bernd Ruehlicke

>
> This happens from JDBC or ij. Here the output form ij>
> ij version 10.0 
> CONNECTION0* - 	jdbc:derby:phsDB 
> * = current connection 
> ij> select a1.XXX_foreign, a1.native, a1.kind, a1.XXX_foreign FROM slg_name_lookup
a1 ORDER BY a1.XXX_foreign;
> ERROR 42X79: Column name 'XXX_FOREIGN' appears more than once in the result of the query
expression. 
> But when removing the ORDER BY and keeping the 2 same column names it works
> ij> select a1.XXX_foreign, a1.native, a1.kind, a1.XXX_foreign FROM slg_name_lookup
a1;
> XXX_FOREIGN                                                                     |NATIVE
                                                                         |KIND           
                        |XXX_FOREIGN                                                     
                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
> 0 rows selected 
> ij> 
> So - it seams to be OK to specify the same column twice - as long as you do not add the
ORDER BY clause.  
> I woul dof course like that the system allows this - but at leats it should be consistant
and either allow both or none of the two queries above.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
   http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
If you want more information on JIRA, or have a bug to report see:
   http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira


Mime
View raw message