This Following statement executes perfectly in SQL2000
but not in SQL7.0 it gives the message
Server: Msg 147, Level 16, State 2, Procedure spTEST1, Line 57
An aggregate may not appear in the WHERE clause unless it is in a subquery contained in a HAVING clause or a select list, and the column being aggregated is an outer reference.
Create Procedure "spTEST1"
As
--Update Processed Flags
UPDATE tblTransaction
SET TransProcessed = 1
FROM dbo.tblTrustGroupTrust
INNER JOIN dbo.tblTrust ON dbo.tblTrustGroupTrust.TgtTrustID = dbo.tblTrust.TrustID
INNER JOIN dbo.tblTransaction ON dbo.tblTrust.TrustID = dbo.tblTransaction.TransTrustID
INNER JOIN dbo.tblShareholder ON dbo.tblTransaction.TransShID = dbo.tblShareholder.ShID
INNER JOIN dbo.tblTransType ON dbo.tblTransType.TransTypeID = dbo.tblTransaction.TransTypeID
WHERE (dbo.tblTrustGroupTrust.TgtTrustGroupID = 3) AND (dbo.tblTransaction.TransProcessed = 0)
AND (dbo.tblShareholder.ShPaymentMethod = 1) AND (dbo.tblShareholder.ShDeceased = 0) AND tblShareholder.ShBankAccount IS NOT NULL
AND EXISTS
(
SELECT dbo.tblTransaction.TransShID
FROM dbo.tblTrustGroupTrust
INNER JOIN dbo.tblTransaction ON dbo.tblTrustGroupTrust.tgtTrustID = dbo.tblTransaction.TransTrustID
WHERE (dbo.tblTransaction.TransProcessed = 0) AND (dbo.tblTrustGroupTrust.TgtTrustGroupID = 3) AND (dbo.tblShareholder.SHID = dbo.tblTransaction.TransShID)
GROUP BY dbo.tblTransaction.TransShID
HAVING SUM(tblTransaction.TransAmt) >= 10
)
When using a straight select on this statement in SQL7.0 it works fine:
SELECT tblTransaction.TransProcessed
FROM .....
Can anyone shed some light on this?The aggregate is on the table being updated - although it is in a subquery this is correllated and so still fails the test.
If you can change the having clause to
HAVING SUM(dbo.tblTransaction.TransAmt) >= 10
so that it is using the copy of the table in the subquery then it should work.|||It might be clearer if you use an alias for the subquery table like
tblTransaction t2.|||Thanks, I very nearly tried to add the missing dbo prefix's in but I presumed that would be too trivial and the error was more complicated than something like that.
Obviously SQL2000 is a little more relaxed on this sort of thing, as it works without error.
No comments:
Post a Comment