> > playpen=> select ta.a,ta.b,ta.c, (select count (tb.zz) where tb.yy =
> > ta.a) from tablea ta, tableb tb order by tablea.a;
> [ produces 80 rows ]
> > playpen=> select ta.a,ta.b,ta.c, (select count (tb.zz) where tb.yy =
> > ta.a) from tablea ta, tableb tb order by ta.a;
> [ produces 20 rows ]
> > playpen=> select tablea.a,tablea.b,tablea.c, (select count (tableb.zz)
> > where tableb.yy = tablea.a) order by tablea.a;
> [ produces 4 rows ]
Once again, I think that we *really* need to discuss whether implicit
range table entries in SELECT are a good idea. We invariably get a
question like this every week and invariably the answer is "if you give a
table an alias you *must* refer to it by that alias". (I'm sure Tom has
this reply automated by now.) I claim the only thing that buys is
confusion for very little convenience at the other end.
Stop the madness! :)
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
