Intersect

• Iulian -207023

  SSCertifiable

  Points: 7639

  More actions

  November 10, 2011 at 7:14 am

  #1405735

  Any way I think ORDER BY constant should be innofensive. Why such a severe message?

  Regards,

  Iulian

• philip.cullingworth

  SSCrazy

  Points: 2150

  More actions

  November 10, 2011 at 7:25 am

  #1405741

  Iulian -207023 (11/10/2011)

  ---

  Any way I think ORDER BY constant should be innofensive. Why such a severe message?

  Regards,

  Iulian

  Iulian,

  ORDER BY 2

  does not mean the same as

  ORDER BY constant

  , it means order by the second column listed in the select statement

• Iulian -207023

  SSCertifiable

  Points: 7639

  More actions

  November 10, 2011 at 7:30 am

  #1405744

  Thanks Philip, 🙂 now I see it. They thought at this one too isn't it?

  Regards,

  Iulian

• tilew-948340

  Hall of Fame

  Points: 3431

  More actions

  November 10, 2011 at 7:16 pm

  #1406059

  Hugo Kornelis (11/10/2011)

  ---

  tilew-948340 (11/9/2011)

  ---

  Why the quey works fine if I remove the "order by 2" if its a conversion bug?

  Because the bug is not introduced by conversion only, but by the combination of an INSTERSECT query with an ORDER BY and an implicit conversion in the right-hand side.

  Did you follow the link Paul White posted earlier?

  http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/details/630087/intersect-with-order-by-abends-when-data-types-are-implicitly-converted-on-right-hand-side

  Yes I did, but it does not explain the bug as well as you do, so I did not get it 😀

  Thanks!