References: <472789db@newsgate.x-privat.org> <4727af53$1@kcnews01> <472831bf$1@newsgate.x-privat.org>
In-Reply-To: <472831bf$1@newsgate.x-privat.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.91.197.52
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.91.197.52
Message-ID: <47338e81@news.greennet.net>
X-Trace: 8 Nov 2007 17:32:33 -0500, 192.91.197.52
Lines: 34
Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.gig anews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newspeer1.nwr.nac.net! feedme.ziplink.net!news.greennet.net!192.91.197.52
Bytes: 2095
X-Original-Bytes: 2052
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.sys.ibm.as400.misc:214755

Actually, I believe that SQL Server's UPDATE FROM syntax is proprietary and that
syntax does not exist in the SQL Standard.

Richard wrote:
> "CRPence" wrote in message
> news:4727af53$1@kcnews01...
>
>> Then the following update should suffice [if indeed a one-to-one
>> relationship] in that scenario:
>>
>> update F1
>> set (P, Q) = (select R, S from F2
>> where F1.A=F2.C and F1.B=F2.D
>> and (F1.P<>F2.R or F1.Q<>F2.S) )
>> where exists (select 1 from F2
>> where F1.A=F2.C and F1.B=F2.D
>> and (F1.P<>F2.R or F1.Q<>F2.S) )

>
>
> Many thanks Chuck ........ sometimes SQL just isn't as "English like" as its
> proponents make out.
>
> One day IBM will go standard and provide the UPDATE x SET ....... FROM
> ............. WHERE...... construct which is much more "sensible"!
>
>
>


--
Kent Milligan
ISV Enablement - System i
kmill@us.eye-bee-m.com (spam trick) GO HAWKEYES!!
>>> ibm.com/iseries/db2

(opinions stated are not necessarily those of my employer)