We should support statements without any FROM clause for cases like this.
That way you could do something like this:
{code}
SELECT NEXT VALUE FOR my_seq;
{code}
In the meantime, there are a couple of workarounds:
- do the NEXT VALUE FOR in the UPSERT statement, as this is the most common
use case
- use a table where you know there will be rows, like the SYSTEM.SEQUENCE
table or the SYSTEM.CATALOG table. Best to put a LIMIT clause on your
SELECT so you don't select the entire table each time.Thanks, James On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Dan Di Spaltro <[email protected]>wrote: > So I created a new table and sequence. My typical pattern for that is > selecting from the sequence using a table, but I noticed if the table is > empty it doesn't select anything. While in practice this won't really be a > problem but it's a pain when testing, is this intended behavior? > > Thanks! > > -Dan > > -- > Dan Di Spaltro >
