Re: SQL Order

This is a good example of a poster not providing full information about the problem, and therefore receiving the wrong answer. Lucas, you gave an example containing only 4 codes and you did not mention your actual requirement for hundreds of codes. Therefore you have wasted a couple of days and the time of all the people who responded.

Lucas wrote:

> After extensive testing/usage of 'decode', it only seems to handle ~150
> codes than I get an 'ORA-00939 too many arguments for function'....any other
> way of solving my original problem?
>
> Greatly appreciated,
>
> Lucas
>
> "Lucas" <Lucas_44_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:v%ph9.5$EA.6227_at_news0.telusplanet.net...
> > Tanks, this works for me.....
> >
> >
> > "Sybrand Bakker" <gooiditweg_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message
> > news:248cou08niv2ev5g2i3l8bl6uga0q4jaa8_at_4ax.com...
> > > On Mon, 16 Sep 2002 17:23:16 GMT, "Lucas" <Lucas_44_at_hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Hi all,
> > > >
> > > >I want my query result to be in the same order as my codes that I set:
> > > >
> > > >Ex:
> > > >
> > > >select * from
> > > >Emp
> > > >where empcode in (810,974,603,648)
> > > >
> > > >The result is not at all in this order? Any suggestions on why? Or is
> > there
> > > >a better way of doing this?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Lucas
> > > >
> > > >
> > > We're talking about relational databases and about sets here. Sets are
> > > by definition unordered.
> > > The solution would be to
> > > select decode(empcode,810,1,974,2,603,2,648,3,null) sortorder, *
> > > from emp
> > > where empcode in (810,974,603,648)
> > > order by sortorder
> > >
> > >
> > > Hth
> > >
> > >
> > > Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA
> > >
> > > To reply remove -verwijderdit from my e-mail address
> >
> >