|
|
Posted by Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) on 05/04/06 06:29
"Roy Harvey" <roy_harvey@snet.net> wrote in message
news:bj2i5256taa324mt0v5umfdbnvc4p1om58@4ax.com...
> As you are learning, SQL Server has little in common with Access. SQL
> Server stays much closer to the relational model. In this case, the
> relational model tells us that tables are un-ordered sets; there is no
> concept of first or last in sets.
>
> The SQL Server 2005 documentation also says that set rowcount will be
> going away some day. We should be using TOP instead, in this case TOP
> 1. With an ORDER BY, TOP 1 will return the "first" row as determined
> by the ORDER BY. Without the ORDER BY the single row returned is
> random.
Actually row_number() or rank() is an even better solution.
But agreed, rowcount isn't a good solution here.
>
> Roy Harvey
> Beacon Falls, CT
>
> On 3 May 2006 12:45:58 -0700, rss@ddsc.com wrote:
>
> >set rowcount 1
> >select Idnum1,Idnum3 from mytable order by Idnum1 DESC, idnum3 ASC
> >
> >is equivelent to
> >select first(Idnum1),first(idnum3) from mytable order by first(Idnum1)
> >DESC ,first(Idnum3) ASC
> >
> >
> >Isn't that silly? why did Microsoft not add an agregate function First
> >for the Microsoft SQL Server to be consistent with its Microsoft Access
> >product eh?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|