| | | | | Browse by category |
Article ID: 1013
Last updated: 05 Feb, 2008
Problem
I have the following piece of code:
Cause
Yes! That re-definition cuts off the relation between the parent query and sub-query, so you got a non-correlated sub-query. The result proved that.
Action
To solve the problem, you need to use an explicit FROM_CLAUSE for the sub-query:
I have the following piece of code:
sel << table1;This results with no row selected, which is not correct. When I turn on the RWDBTracer, I get
subSel << table2;
subSel.where( table2[c1] == table1[c1] );
sel.where ( !rwdbExists(subSel) );
SELECT t0 FROM table1 t0 WHERE EXISTS( SELECT t1.* FROM table2 t1, table1 t0 where t1.c1 = t0.c1).I noticed there is a re-definition of parent table alias inside the sub-query. Could that cause the problem?
Cause
Yes! That re-definition cuts off the relation between the parent query and sub-query, so you got a non-correlated sub-query. The result proved that.
Action
To solve the problem, you need to use an explicit FROM_CLAUSE for the sub-query:
sel << table1;This discussion also applies to correlated sub-queries in UPDATE and DELETE statements.
subSel << table2;
subSel.from ( table2);
subSel.where( table2[c1] == table1[c1] );
sel.where ( !rwdbExists(subSel) );
This article was:
Helpful |
Not helpful
Report an issue
Article ID: 1013
Last updated: 05 Feb, 2008
Revision: 1
Views: 4154
Posted: 02 Sep, 1997 by
Dean J.
Updated: 05 Feb, 2008 by
Dean J.
Others in this category
Why won't the InfoBrowser contents update in response to selection changes in ClassView or FileView?
Powered by KBPublisher (Knowledge base software)