On Jan 24, 2006, at 20:00 , Alban Hertroys wrote:
> Though this does give the right results, I would have liked to be
> able to use NOT HAVING. Or is there a way using HAVING that would
> give the same results? I'm quite sure HAVING sort_order <> 1
> doesn't mean the same thing.
Why are you so sure? It seems to me that NOT HAVING sort_order = 1
and HAVING sort_order <> 1 would mean semantically the same thing.
Can you show that HAVING sort_order <> 1 gives incorrect results?
Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com
