> Thursday, June 19, 2003, 4:31:03 AM, you wrote:
> pr> In this case I must guess, that UNION DISTINCT is in SQL:99
> pr> but not in SQL:92. Anyway, it's really not the most important
> pr> feature, I concede.
>
> You are correct in assuming that UNION DISTINCT is in SQL-99, and not
> in SQL-92. But, in SQL-99, if UNION is specified and neither ALL nor
> DISTINCT is specified, then DISTINCT is implicit. So, as you can see,
> it is not required.

Mind you, the parser shouldn't choke on non-required but implicit stuff :)


With regards,

Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - the developer tool for InterBase & Firebird
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com