On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:23:54 -0700, David Berg wrote:
Yes, but I prefer TOP <n> syntax. It's part of SQL standard (if I am wrong, Diane certainly will flame me ;-) ) .
So, why we don't try to follow the standard... LIMIT <n> appear to be a PostGRE and MySQL specific keyword...
My vote is to follow toward of the standard.
>Sounds great.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ann Harrison [mailto:harrison@...]
>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 9:14 AM
>To: IB-Architect@egroups.com
>Subject: RE: [IB-Architect] re - ODS changes
>
>
>At 08:40 AM 11/10/2000 -0700, David Berg wrote:
>>I think this is the right place. I'm also not sure if IB6 has a "TOP n",
>>but I know that we could really use it if it's not there. We're in the
>>process of rewriting a bunch of code to break handling up into groups of
>>records, and a "TOP n" records option would probably increase performance.
>
>As many of you know, I was at an open source database conference
>recently and met senior people at MySQL and ProgreSQL. We agreed
>that in general, when extending SQL we would share syntax. MySQL
>has a LIMIT clause on select. This is the syntax:
>
> SELECT [DISTINCT] <select list>
> FROM ...
> [WHERE ...]
> [GROUP ...]
> [HAVING ...]
> [ORDER BY ...]
> [LIMIT <n>[, <m>]] <<<---------
> [INTO...]
>
>LIMIT <n> indicates that at most <n> records will be returned.
>LIMIT <n>, <m> indicates that the rows returned will start at
>the <n>th row and include up to <m> rows. The limit is applied
>after the projection (distinct), all restrictions, and ordering.
>The first row is row 0, so LIMIT 1, 10 will skip the first row
>and return the next ten.
>
>My inclination is to do a partial implementation (LIMIT <n>)
>quickly and extend it later.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ann
>
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>IB-Architect-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>IB-Architect-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>
>
>