Bill,
Thanks for turning the lights on. Taking a moment to look at them
as two separate sets of data made all the difference. You'ld think
by now I wouldn't get stuck in that mire.
Ben Petersen
On 24 Aug 2001, at 22:23, Bill Downall wrote:
> Don't think of p1 and p2 as the "same" table. They are two separate
> and distinct instances of empl. They are linked in the conditions, but
> they are just like two totally separate tables with identical sets.
>
> The first example says that p1 is the table of employees named 'fred',
> and p2 is employees with an lft greater than or equal to fred's lft, and
> less than or equal to fred's rgt.
>
> That's different from example two, where logically, p2 is a query of
> employees named fred, and p1 is a query of employees with an lft
> LESS THAN or equal to Fred's lft and also GREATER THAN or equal
> to fred's rgt.
>
> Bill
>
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 19:57:20 +0100, Ben Petersen wrote:
>
> >They are correct, but I don't get it, as p1 and p2 are the same
> >table, and the only difference in the queries is
>
>
>
>
