RE: to_number question

From: <Stephen.Lee_at_DTAG.Com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:08:04 -0500
Message-ID: <D6339830FC73944E889CC3CEADDB205B0790951E@bu-dtagpo1.tracs.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> You were assuming that the filter would
> be applied
> before the function, but you can not assume that, you have to
> explicitly
> request it.

I believe the purpose of the subquery was to "request it". The function was being applied to data that was not in the subquery. If this is part of the laws of SQL processing, "then the law is an ass". I'm more inclined to say that this is a bug. If you have an example of "request it" that you think is correct and shows mine to be wrong, I would be most interested in it.

> Just as you can not assume that the resultset is
> returned in a
> particular order, you have to explicitly request it with an
> "order by" clause.

I would be most interested to see how an "order by" would fix this situation.

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com

To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.

--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Thu Jul 15 2004 - 07:04:52 CDT