I think anything using a (number of rows to skip) and a (max number of rows
to fetch) keyword is fine, no need to add noise.
So,
[SKIP | OFFSET] n [TAKE | FETCH | LIMIT] m
...would do in any of the possible combinations.
(I _do_ like skip/take a little more than the alternatives because it
resembles the OOP side -LINQ- more than the nonstandard SQL side)
Diego
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 03:11, Patrick Earl <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm looking at adding limit and offset to the HQL grammar to support
> things like grabbing the top row sorted by date in a subquery. This
> is related to the most popular Linq "bug." Other than the limitations
> of particular databases, I'm not imagining there will be a great
> number of problems implementing this.
>
> The biggest issue I have right now is deciding the syntax. SQL 2008
> specifies the following syntax for the limit clause that appears after
> the order by clause.
>
> Option A (ANSI SQL)
> [ OFFSET integer-literal {ROW | ROWS} ]
> [ FETCH { FIRST | NEXT } [integer-literal] {ROW | ROWS} ONLY ]
>
> This is the standard, but quite verbose. Specifying first, next, row,
> rows, or only has absolutely no effect, but is required by the
> standard.
>
> Option B (PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc.)
> [LIMIT integer]
> [OFFSET integer]
>
> I'm not even going to propose using something like row_number as a hql
> syntax.
>
> What are people's thoughts on this?
>
> Patrick Earl
>
