Re: First

"Alan" <alan_at_erols.com> a écrit dans le message de news:2nesn5F53etU1_at_uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:1091677677.736929_at_yasure...
> > Peter Plumber wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Does Qracle 9i support a SELECT that returns
> > > only a subset of the records
> > >
> > > something link
> > >
> > > SELECT FIRST 1 * FROM tablename
> > >
> > > thx
> > >
> > > Peter
> >
> > Have to confess that I am really disappointed with the responses from
> > Michel, Hans, Rene, and Turkbear because not one gave the answer I
> > was going to give. And I was sure as I read through theirs that one or
> > all of them would have done it first ... so here's mine:
> >
> > CREATE TABLE t AS
> > SELECT object_name
> > FROM all_objects
> > WHERE rownum < 81;
> >
> > SELECT COUNT(*)
> > FROM t;
> >
> > SELECT *
> > FROM t
> > SAMPLE (25);
> >
> > Returns 25% of the rows.
> >
> > --
> > Daniel A. Morgan
> > University of Washington
> > damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
> > (replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)
> >
>
> I am disapopinted with all of you. The correct answer is, "There is no such
> thing as "first", as tables are (unordered) sets. So, what is it you
> _really_ need to do?"
>
>

Sorry to disagree with you but there is always "first" even when there is no order. At least it the first ones to be displayed whichever these rows may be. And from which Daniel's not so bad answer ;) as first ones may be any ones else.

--
Regards
Michel Cadot