Mailing-List: contact derby-user-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Derby Discussion" <derby-user@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: domain of denials@gmail.com designates
 64.233.170.197 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references;
        b=hCvjwcR9Apc4woo6+Djr0qkHEZhjs3bKtLMqq9bVlP2UOj4utcvZ6sKHDx+9qu9Xt2wqcFCU2SRAlLYsGQK5ZpDNrLeg1eSZsKT4MZsENXhjDzByG9N7EhzK9+hpBqHAXdi+LztNydeseOwhp+E+AO64r8+wJOBfUcg4miBfmW8=
Message-ID: <fbb0d11d05031607303e164e83@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:30:41 -0500
From: Dan Scott <denials@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Dan Scott <denials@gmail.com>
To: Derby Discussion <derby-user@db.apache.org>
Subject: Re: LIMIT with Select Statement
In-Reply-To: 
 <1B37BEFB3456F1428E01932AFA147822E1A606@HOUEXCH902.landmark.lgc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: 
 <1B37BEFB3456F1428E01932AFA147822E1A606@HOUEXCH902.landmark.lgc.com>

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
> >
>