Correct and improve HAVING clause#235
Merged
craigg-msft merged 2 commits intoMicrosoftDocs:livefrom Dec 6, 2017
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
Contributor
|
@MightyPen please review |
Contributor
|
@srutzky @craigg-msft Solomon, this is excellent work. Your change fixes a direct problem in the T-SQL documentation. Thanks so much. This change shall be approved. |
Contributor
|
#sign-off |
Contributor
|
Thank you @MightyPen and @srutzky |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The statement:
is entirely incorrect. The following tests prove that
HAVINGonly ever applies to groups and aggregate expressions (well, and constants, but that's not very useful 😉 ):If
HAVINGwithoutGROUP BYacted like aWHEREclause, then at least one of the following would work, yet they all error:The following is just to show that constants are valid, but I don't see the benefit of including this in the documentation (just documenting it here for completeness and future reference):
I also clarified the explanation of the
<search_condition>argument so it does not imply that only a single condition / predicate can be specified.