Re: question about merge

>>> On Oct 25, 3:28 pm, ddf <orat..._at_msn.com> wrote: >>> You need to reverse the matched and unmatched conditions:

>> That's _got_ to be a bug! Why would the ordering of [matched v. not]
>> matter? The docs imply matched first, and I know all the ones I've
>> written have done it that way, but then again, I haven't used it to
>> delete. Am I missing something? What if KING is in dept 20?

> All I  had time to do is get it to work by following the docs (they
> say you have have the pieces in either order).  I haven't dug deep
> into the bowels of it to see why one works and another doesn't.

guys, thanks for your opinions. if I use 'no-doubt-syntax' like this:

     ...
     when matched then
         update set m.job='janitor' where m.ename='KING'
         delete where m.job='janitor'
     ...

it works as expected (10.2.0.1.0). I understand that reversing order helps, adding aliases helps too, but this behaviour looks suspicious to me anyway.

thank you,
geos Received on Wed Oct 26 2011 - 01:48:00 CDT