No problem - I am cool with this. I was just checking. By the way - when did the NOT NULL stuff got incorporated ? I had to fight with this and it really anoyed me. So - HURRAY for this change.
B-) > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:31 AM > To: Derby Discussion > Subject: Re: LIMIT with Select Statement > > Bernd: > > That's not a good assumption. The Derby Project Charter > (http://incubator.apache.org/derby/) states: > > The Derby project develops open source database technology that is: > > * Pure Java > * Easy to use > * Small footprint > * Standards based > * Secure > > The reason I proposed the ROW_NUMBER() OVER approach is that > it conforms to point 4 in the charter: standards compliance. > > There's nothing about DB2 compatibility in the Derby charter. > For one recent example, the change to no longer require an > explicit NOT NULL clause in the declaration of a column as a > PRIMARY KEY breaks compatibility with DB2 syntax. > > Dan > > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:22:12 -0600, Bernd Ruehlicke > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I assume Derby has to stay in a "mode" so it is always possible to > > migrate to DB2 ? - Not that I know of this - I am just throwing the > > ball in the air to see if anyone is responding to this. > > > > Anyone knows what restrictions/dependencies we have to keep in sync > > with > > DB2 ? - In particular with DDL statements and the possibilities to > > migrate a Derby database to DB2 ? > > > > Bernd > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Dan Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:19 AM > > > To: Derby Discussion > > > Cc: Derby Development > > > Subject: Re: LIMIT with Select Statement > > > > > > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:48:16 -0800, Mamta Satoor > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:52:56 +0530, Devang > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it possible to use "LIMIT" keyword with select statement? > > > > > > > > > > Or is there any other alternative for the same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanx > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Devang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Devang, > > > > > > > > If you search for "Support for SQL Limit?" in the derby > > > developer list > > > > archive, you will find last set of discussion on the > LIMIT keyword. > > > > > > > > Here is the url for "Support for SQL Limit?" > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=derby-dev > > > @d > > > > b.apache.org&msgNo=1065 > > > > > > > > Mamta > > > > > > > > > > Hmm. > > > > > > Rather than the suggestion from Jeremy Boynes to add LIMIT as a > > > Derby feature, what about adding a more standard window function > > > feature like ROW_NUMBER() OVER as described in > > > http://troels.arvin.dk/db/rdbms/#select-limit ? > > > > > > Speaking of which, perhaps someone could offer the Derby > equivalents > > > to Troels' comparison of SQL dialects page... > > > > > > Dan > > > > > >
