Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote:

>>But isn't it rather complicated to achieve the "first 1" semantics in
>>the OP's way using joins?
>
> Not so complicated if you note that original subselects don't have
> ORDER BY clause.

Yes. Noted. Wonder what Piotr actually wanted to achieve...

>>How would you suggest to do that? (Not that I can't see a solution, just
>>not a very neat one...)
>
> Use aggregates. Because order is not set, MAX() will work not worse
> than MIN().

Right, works since there are no order by in the subselects. But what if
there were?? But let's wait with that until we know if that's what Piotr
wanted.

Piotr?

Kjell
--
--------------------------------------
Kjell Rilbe
DataDIA AB
E-post: kjell@...
Telefon: 08-761 06 55
Mobil: 0733-44 24 64