db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bernd Ruehlicke" <BRuehli...@lgc.com>
Subject RE: LIMIT with Select Statement
Date Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:33:40 GMT
 
No problem - I am cool with this. I was just checking.

By the way - when did the NOT NULL stuff got incorporated ? I had to
fight with this and it really anoyed me. So - HURRAY for this change.

B-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Scott [mailto:denials@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:31 AM
> To: Derby Discussion
> Subject: Re: LIMIT with Select Statement
> 
> Bernd:
> 
> That's not a good assumption. The Derby Project Charter
> (http://incubator.apache.org/derby/) states:
> 
> The Derby project develops open source database technology that is:
> 
>     * Pure Java
>     * Easy to use
>     * Small footprint
>     * Standards based
>     * Secure
> 
> The reason I proposed the ROW_NUMBER() OVER approach is that 
> it conforms to point 4 in the charter: standards compliance.
> 
> There's nothing about DB2 compatibility in the Derby charter. 
> For one recent example, the change to no longer require an 
> explicit NOT NULL clause in the declaration of a column as a 
> PRIMARY KEY breaks compatibility with DB2 syntax.
> 
> Dan
> 
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:22:12 -0600, Bernd Ruehlicke 
> <BRuehlicke@lgc.com> wrote:
> > 
> > I assume Derby has to stay in a "mode" so it is always possible to 
> > migrate to DB2 ? - Not that I know of this - I am just throwing the 
> > ball in the air to see if anyone is responding to this.
> > 
> > Anyone knows what restrictions/dependencies we have to keep in sync 
> > with
> > DB2 ? - In particular with DDL statements and the possibilities to 
> > migrate a Derby database to DB2 ?
> > 
> > Bernd
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dan Scott [mailto:denials@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:19 AM
> > > To: Derby Discussion
> > > Cc: Derby Development
> > > Subject: Re: LIMIT with Select Statement
> > >
> > > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:48:16 -0800, Mamta Satoor 
> <msatoor@gmail.com> 
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:52:56 +0530, Devang 
> > > > <devang@molecularconnections.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it possible to use  "LIMIT"  keyword with select statement?
> > > > >
> > > > > Or is there any other alternative for the same?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanx
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Devang
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Devang,
> > > >
> > > > If you search for "Support for SQL Limit?" in the derby
> > > developer list
> > > > archive, you will find last set of discussion on the 
> LIMIT keyword.
> > > >
> > > > Here is the url for "Support for SQL Limit?"
> > > >
> > > 
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=derby-dev
> > > @d
> > > > b.apache.org&msgNo=1065
> > > >
> > > > Mamta
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hmm.
> > >
> > > Rather than the suggestion from Jeremy Boynes to add LIMIT as a 
> > > Derby feature, what about adding a more standard window function 
> > > feature like ROW_NUMBER() OVER as described in 
> > > http://troels.arvin.dk/db/rdbms/#select-limit ?
> > >
> > > Speaking of which, perhaps someone could offer the Derby 
> equivalents 
> > > to Troels' comparison of SQL dialects page...
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> >
> 

Mime
View raw message