New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
View created from JOIN and LEFT JOIN doesnt order [CORE2870] #3254
Comments
Commented by: @dyemanov Please provide a reproducible test case. |
Commented by: Tomas Krejzek (respektive) I'm so sorry, I forgot word "DISTINCT" the test case is from employee.fdb distributed with firebird CREATE VIEW UNORDERED_VIEW( The DISTINCT is crutial, on FB2.1.3 if I change first JOIN to LEFT JOIN (in my case I can, the result is same) the view work fine. On FB2.0.5 I have to remove distinct, the change JOIN to LEFT JOIN doesnt help to work fine My post is described in firebird support list - "FB 2.1.3 - cannot order VIEW rows" from 3.2.2010 |
Modified by: @pcisarstatus: Resolved [ 5 ] => Closed [ 6 ] |
Modified by: @pavel-zotovQA Status: No test |
Modified by: @pavel-zotovstatus: Closed [ 6 ] => Closed [ 6 ] QA Status: No test => Done successfully Test Details: Though this ticket duplicates core-1089 I've decided to put its test into separate file because of data and resultset size (it contains simplified DDL and data of three tables from standard 'employee' database). |
Submitted by: Tomas Krejzek (respektive)
Duplicates CORE1089
Duplicates CORE2863
When You create view like this
create view unordered_view (
tab1_column1,
tab1_column2,
tab2_column1,
tab3_column1)
as
select
tab1_column1,
tab1_column2,
tab2_column1,
tab3_column1
from tab1
join tab2 on tab1_columnX = tab2_columnY
left join tab3 on tab1_columnY = tab3_columnZ
;
When You call
Select * from unordered_view order by ....
it doesnt order rows a I want. The only columns from tab3 works.
====== Test Details ======
Though this ticket duplicates core-1089 I've decided to put its test into separate file because of data and resultset size (it contains simplified DDL and data of three tables from standard 'employee' database).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: