Hi all,

>>>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:32:25 -0000, "csswa" <csswa@...>
>>>>> said:

c> Messages 11745 & 11747 addressed your first post on this topic.
c> Possibly you overlooked them.

Yup! Thanx for pointing me the obvious :-)

>>>>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:22:22 +0200, "set"
>>>>> <svein.erling.tysvaer@k...> said:

set> Lele, you say that your script alter several SPs. This is DDL
set> and not DML. I think you can do maximum 128 (or was is 255?)
set> changes to any object through DDL before you get an error
set> message like yours.

Uhm, I'm not 100% sure this cannot be the case, since I think that
this happened on freshly restored DB, but it's something I will check
ASAP.

set> The solution? Do a backup and restore...

Yes, I did know the limits/workarounds. The news is that it emits such
a IMO misleading message.

>>>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:27:24 +1000, "hb" Helen Borrie
>>>>> <helebor@t...> said:

hb> Lele, Do you happen to have any DML in there that is using the
hb> IN() predicate? The implementation limit for that is 1500
hb> maximum items in the set. Maybe you are seeing it succeeding
hb> on smaller sets and falling over on sets > 1500...

No Helen, there are no DMLs at all there, only DDLs, in the specific
just ALTER SP.

BTW, I tend to avoid the IN() predicate if not just for quick
interactive checks because it does not use indexes when used in the
form IN( SELECT ... ). Is this still true with FB?

thanx to all,
bye, lele.
--
nickname: Lele Gaifax | Quando vivro' di quello che ho pensato ieri
real: Emanuele Gaifas | comincero' ad aver paura di chi mi copia.
email: lele@... | -- Fortunato Depero, 1929.