|
|
Posted by Plamen Ratchev on 01/09/07 13:39
Yes, the wording is not very clear. I trusted the statement in the
workaround section as well as the samples provided below.
Thanks!
Plamen Ratchev
http://www.SQLStudio.com
"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@sommarskog.se> wrote in message
news:Xns98B3675065125Yazorman@127.0.0.1...
> Plamen Ratchev (Plamen@SQLStudio.com) writes:
>> I believe you are referring to the behavior explained in this KB article:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/287515
>>
>> The way this query is written it follows exactly the workaround solution
>> explained in the article (to apply any function or expression to the
>> SELECT list columns rather than in the ORDER BY clause). According to
>> the article then the query will achieve the expected results.
>
> But observe the first paragraph under CAUSE. The article then bends over
> backwards to do it anyway, which contradicts the first paragraph. I prefer
> to trust that first paragraph that says the correct behvaiour is
> undefined.
>
>> This query was tested with both SQL Server 2000 and SQL Server 2005.
>
> Yes, but did you get expected results, because you should get them, or
> was it mere chance? Compare the TOP 100 PERCENT .. ORDER BY in views that
> many incorrectly relied on in SQL 2000, and then were bitten by in
> SQL 2005.
>
>
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
>
> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|