Re: [Fwd: Re: no ORDER BY in subselects?]

At 09:20 20/09/00 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>Ooops, posted this to Phillip rather than the list, sorry Phillip ...
>
>Folks,
>
>Philip Warner wrote:
>>
>> At 15:23 20/09/00 +0200, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
>> >
>> >ERROR: parser: parse error at or near "order"
>> >
>> >Aren't ORDER BY clauses allowed in subselects?
>> >
>>
>> It is a very very sad fact, but, no, they're not.
>
>Hmmmm ... can't say as I've ever seen an ORDER BY in a subselect before.
>Why would you want one?
>

The main reason I use them is to find the 'next' or 'previous' record in a
list (eg. next date, next ID). eg.

select <whatever>, (select ID from table where id > this.id
order by id asc limit 1) as next_id ...

OR

select <whatever>, (select Start_Date from table where Start_Date >
this.Start_Date
Order By Start_Date asc limit 1) as End_Date

>And if you do want one, Louis-David, you can always use a temporary
>table as previously described.

It is A LOT less clean.

The fact that Dec RDB, Oracle and SQL/Server all allow it probably means
that there is a reasonable user base out there who think it's a good idea.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/