I think the confusion comes down to where the subslect only refers to exactly one table. That single query has nothing to do with any other table. There isn't a join, there isn't a reference to any other table, so the fuzzy question is why would an ambiguous error come up if there is exactly only one field referenced in one table for that one query. The subquery shouldn't have any clue to what the outside query is referring to or looking or or what they're aliased as. (Ack that the field doesn't exist in DB, which the OP stated)
The subquery is asking for all values in exactly one field in exactly one table. What is so ambiguous about that? What I'm gathering from Igor and Ryan is that even though the subquery looks to be a self contained entity, it actually isn't? On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Igor Tandetnik <igor at tandetnik.org> wrote: > On 3/22/2015 11:50 AM, Bart Smissaert wrote: > >> Still, in this particular case it seems odd as there is only one column >> and >> one table in the sub-select. >> > > I'm not sure I understand what significance you ascribe to this fact. Why > again should the number of columns or tables in subselect matter? > > -- > Igor Tandetnik > > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users >
