Concatenate Columm Values from multiple Rows into a single col

Yes, the order is not guaranteed.
ML
http://milambda.blogspot.com/ML (ML@.discussions.microsoft.com) writes:
> Yes, the order is not guaranteed.
Not even that. You are not even guaranteed to get all rows. For 1, 2, 3, 4
you could get '1,2,3,4' or you could get only '4'.
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||That would make the function completely useless - could you give an example,
please? I've tested it with a few typical set-ups and have always found it t
o
return expected results.
ML
http://milambda.blogspot.com/|||ML (ML@.discussions.microsoft.com) writes:
> That would make the function completely useless - could you give an
> example, please? I've tested it with a few typical set-ups and have
> always found it to return expected results.
Check out http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=287515, and pay
particular attention to the first sentence under CAUSE.
Nevermind that the article then bend over backwards, to specify things that
may work. For me the conclusion is clear: don't rely on this.
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||I agree using functions in the ORDER BY clause in this case is a disaster
waiting to happen, but since my function does not use them at all, were you
able to reproduce the problem anyway?
If you're too busy to play with this, I absolutely understand. I'm just
trying to learn new things every day. I promise I'll stop a few days after
I'm dead. ;)
ML
http://milambda.blogspot.com/|||ML (ML@.discussions.microsoft.com) writes:
> I agree using functions in the ORDER BY clause in this case is a
> disaster waiting to happen, but since my function does not use them at
> all, were you able to reproduce the problem anyway?
My point is not that I can reproduce it here and now. My point is that
what works today, could break tomorrow.
For instance, there are people out there who have defined views in
SQL 2000 which goes:
SELECT TOP 100 PERCENT
..
ORDER BY
and they are happy because when they say:
SELECT * FROM view1
the see the data in order.
Then they move to SQL 2005 and get hit, because the optimizer is now
less likely to return the data in order. The truth was all the time
that without an ORDER BY, the order of the data is undefined.
See also
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/produ...b9-3dd863ae6b1c
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||This bug report clears up the matter greatly. Thank you very much. I intend
to include this example in my blog as a warning ASAP.
I've searched the web for this issue, but found no usable references. Thanks
again.
ML
http://milambda.blogspot.com/