Latest versionsfixlist
11.1.0.7 FixList
10.5.0.9 FixList
10.1.0.6 FixList
9.8.0.5 FixList
9.7.0.11 FixList
9.5.0.10 FixList
9.1.0.12 FixList
Have problems? - contact us.
Register for free anmeldung-x26
Contact form kontakt-x26

DB2 - Problem description

Problem IC64772 Status: Closed

Query that uses OLAP specification OVER clause with 0 FOLLOWING might
return wrong results.

product:
DB2 FOR LUW / DB2FORLUW / 910 - DB2
Problem description:
A query that uses the OLAP specification "OVER" clause and also 
contains "0 FOLLOWING" might give wrong results. 
 
The following is an example query that can give wrong results: 
 
SELECT C1, C2, COUNT(C2) OVER (ORDER BY C1 ROWS BETWEEN 0 
FOLLOWING AND 1  FOLLOWING) from t1 
 
In the case of wrong results, for the above query the 3rd column 
that is output (i.e. count(c2)) might show an incorrect number 
for the count. 
To workaround you can rewrite your query to not use  "0 
FOLLOWING". 
"CURRENT ROW" or "0 PRECEDING" can be used instead.
Problem Summary:
**************************************************************** 
* USERS AFFECTED:                                              * 
* OLAP SQL with 0 FOLLOWING                                    * 
**************************************************************** 
* PROBLEM DESCRIPTION:                                         * 
* A query that uses the OLAP specification "OVER" clause and   * 
* also                                                         * 
* contains "0 FOLLOWING" might give wrong results.             * 
*                                                              * 
*                                                              * 
*                                                              * 
* The following is an example query that can give wrong        * 
* results:                                                     * 
*                                                              * 
*                                                              * 
* SELECT C1, C2, COUNT(C2) OVER (ORDER BY C1 ROWS BETWEEN 0    * 
*                                                              * 
* FOLLOWING AND 1  FOLLOWING) from t1                          * 
*                                                              * 
*                                                              * 
*                                                              * 
* In the case of wrong results, for the above query the 3rd    * 
* column                                                       * 
* that is output (i.e. count(c2)) might show an incorrect      * 
* number                                                       * 
* for the count.                                               * 
*                                                              * 
* To workaround you can rewrite your query to not use  "0      * 
*                                                              * 
* FOLLOWING".                                                  * 
*                                                              * 
* "CURRENT ROW" or "0 PRECEDING" can be used instead.          * 
**************************************************************** 
* RECOMMENDATION:                                              * 
* rewrite the query to not use 0 FOLLOWING or install this     * 
* APAR                                                         * 
****************************************************************
Local Fix:
rewrite the query to not use 0 FOLLOWING or install this APAR
available fix packs:
DB2 Version 9.1 Fix Pack 9  for Linux, UNIX and Windows
DB2 Version 9.1 Fix Pack 10  for Linux, UNIX and Windows
DB2 Version 9.1 Fix Pack 11  for Linux, UNIX and Windows
DB2 Version 9.1 Fix Pack 12  for Linux, UNIX and Windows

Solution
A query that uses the OLAP specification "OVER" clause and 
also 
contains "0 FOLLOWING" might give wrong results. 
 
 
The following is an example query that can give wrong results: 
 
SELECT C1, C2, COUNT(C2) OVER (ORDER BY C1 ROWS BETWEEN 0 
FOLLOWING AND 1  FOLLOWING) from t1 
 
In the case of wrong results, for the above query the 3rd 
column 
that is output (i.e. count(c2)) might show an incorrect number 
for the count. 
To workaround you can rewrite your query to not use  "0 
FOLLOWING". 
"CURRENT ROW" or "0 PRECEDING" can be used instead.
Workaround
not known / see Local fix
BUG-Tracking
forerunner  : APAR is sysrouted TO one or more of the following: IC64826 IC65715 
follow-up : 
Timestamps
Date  - problem reported    :
Date  - problem closed      :
Date  - last modified       :
23.11.2009
14.04.2010
14.04.2010
Problem solved at the following versions (IBM BugInfos)
Problem solved according to the fixlist(s) of the following version(s)
9.1.0.9 FixList
This site uses cookies to make it easier for us to provide you with our services. By using our site you agree to the use of cookies.