Re[6]: to_number question

From: Jonathan Gennick <jonathan_at_gennick.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:13:22 -0400
Message-ID: <178986183016.20040715101322@gennick.com>

Thursday, July 15, 2004, 9:51:56 AM, Wolfgang Breitling (breitliw_at_centrexcc.com) wrote:

WB> If you bring something into play 
WB> that violates the commutativity, YOU are not playing by the rules, not the 
WB> optimizer.

Then I would argue that it is not I who am bringing something into play that violates the rules, but that SQL itself is doing so. I fail to see how subqueries in the FROM clause can fail to violate the commutativity that you speak of.

I'm also not convinced yet about what you say, but I want to go back and do a bit of research before I say more. I you are correct, then I have some major, mental readjusting to do.

I also don't think I'm looking at the "right" version of Stephen's query, because when I tried to execute it I received an error that made me realize that his query should not work at all.

Best regards,

Jonathan Gennick --- Brighten the corner where you are http://Gennick.com * 906.387.1698 * mailto:jonathan@gennick.com

Join the Oracle-article list and receive one article on Oracle technologies per month by email. To join, visit http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/oracle-article, or send email to Oracle-article-request_at_gennick.com and include the word "subscribe" in either the subject or body.

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 - 09:10:07 CDT