Warren, I have also noticed this in earlier versions when trying to order by a number of large string fields. I think that group by clause has the same limitation as well, but can't be sure.
Then it used to give a warning that it was too large. Perhaps the error warning is only triggered by the total length of string fields. r ------------------------------------------- Robert Crossley Agtrix P/L Australia Far Southern Queensland Office: 9 Short Street PO Box 63 New Brighton 2483 P: 61 2 6680 1309 F: 61 2 6680 5214 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: www.agtrix.com Brisbane Office: 109 Milsom St Cooparoo 4151 Queensland P: 61 7 3843 3363 -----Original Message----- From: Warren Vick, Europa Technologies Ltd. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 30 October 2005 23:26 To: [email protected] Subject: MI-L Limitation in ORDER BY clause Hello Listers, Here's a problem with Pro's (v8.0) SQL implementation that I had not noticed before. I've just been developing a MB program which includes a SELECT statement ordered by two fields (a 200 string field and an integer field). However, the results are not what I expected as the integer field does not sort correctly. On the hunch that Pro has a limit to the total field size for the ORDER BY clause, I reduced the string field to 150 characters (big enough for my data anyway) and magically it now works. So, lister beware than ORDER BY's (and maybe even GROUP BY's) are limited by field sizes. Regards, Warren Vick Europa Technologies Ltd. http://www.europa-tech.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- List hosting provided by Directions Magazine | www.directionsmag.com | To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message number: 18530 --------------------------------------------------------------------- List hosting provided by Directions Magazine | www.directionsmag.com | To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message number: 18532
