Re: ORA-00907 : missing right parenthesis

"Galen Boyer" <galenboyer_at_hotpop.com> wrote in message news:uk6scjsf0.fsf_at_standardandpoors.com...
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, alan_at_erols.com wrote:
> >
> > "Galen Boyer" <galenboyer_at_hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > news:uwtwcjz55.fsf_at_standardandpoors.com...
> >> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, alan_at_erols.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > <jamesmgiordano_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:1101219173.539967.156610_at_c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> I am using TOAD with Oracle 9i. Getting a weird error that
> >> >> I don't understand.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not sure why this error is coming up, but I have two tables
> >> >> that I am trying to run SQL on.
> >> >>
> >> >> select t1.table1_id,(select t2.created from table2 tr where
> >> >> t1.table1_id=t2.table1_id and rownum = 1
> >> >> order by t2.created) as created from table1 t1
> >> >>
> >> >> I am basically trying to get the newest record from my
> >> >> lookup table (table2) and return all rows from table1.
> >> >>
> >> >> If I change the word "order" to "group" it will work, but
> >> >> if I use "order" it complains. Does anyone have any ideas
> >> >> why? Thanks for any help you can give me, JJ
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > This will not answer your question, but you have a bigger
> >> > issue to solve.
> >> >
> >> > The first thing you need to know is that there is no such
> >> > thing as the "first" or "newest" record unless you have
> >> > time-dependent data of some kind (E.g., a timestamp). Tables
> >> > are _sets_ of data, and as such, are technically
> >> > unordered. There is no guarantee that records will be
> >> > returned in the same order every time ( know- it sure looks
> >> > like they are- don't be fooled). Rownum = 1 will not do
> >> > what you need at all. Rownum can be used to reduce the
> >> > number of records returned, but not to impose or infer an
> >> > order.
> >>
> >> Well, almost. rownum will get him what he wants, as long as
> >> it operates on the ordered set.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Galen Boyer
> >
> >
> > Only if the ordered set is ordered by something that is time
> > dependent, or by whatever else it is that may be what he
> > considers "first" (last name, E.g.). Anyway, I was trying to
> > make the "set" point, as it did not appear that he understood
> > the underlying problem.

>

I don't see where he is using a date. Received on Tue Nov 23 2004 - 14:34:54 CST