Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
A co-worker just came to me with a puzzling SQL query:
(essentially)
SELECT LEAST(id) FROM tableA A, tableB B WHERE a.name = b.name(+) The result set returned lists three numbers however:
LEAST(id)
————–
621
644
689
(all being IDs that meet the query as if it lacked the LEAST function all together)
Why? =)
LEAST(x,y,…) is not an aggregate function. It works only on its parameters. The function you want is MIN(x).
For each record, you’re running LEAST(id), which will always return id. If you were passing LEAST more parameters, you would see different results. For example,
LEAST(5,6,7) = 5. LEAST always returns the smallest of its parameters, whereas MIN returns the smallest of every record.