Re: [Firebird-docs] Wrong example in FB 4.0 Beta release notes

[Mark R. <ma...@la...>]

On 09-02-2020 22:38, Köditz, Martin wrote:
> I think we have a simple error in the release docs for FB 4.0 Beta 1:
> 
> Section
> 
> *More Window Functions* (Pages: 76-77)
> Ranking Functions:
> 
[..]
> 
> Simple Example
> The following example illustrates the behaviour of ranking functions. 
> SUM is included for comparison.
> 
> SQL> select
> CON> *id*,
> CON> salary,
[..]
> CON> order by salary;
> Statement failed, SQLSTATE = 42S22
> Dynamic SQL Error
> -SQL error code = -206
> -Column unknown
> -ID
> -At line 2, column
> 
> „id“ has to be „emp_no“. The same for the table.
> 
> Please verify. I don’t have an installation of FB 4.0.

That is only true if you assume the examples are against the example 
employee database, and that is not actually the case.

Both the [Firebird 3][1] and the Firebird 4 beta 1 release notes have 
used an `employee` table with columns `id`, `salary`, `department` for 
its window functions examples.

That table is explicitly introduced in the Firebird 3 release notes (see 
under "Aggregate Functions Used as Window Functions"_) with _"Imagine a 
table EMPLOYEE with columns ID, NAME and SALARY, [..]."_ (note that it 
doesn't define `department`, though that does get used and `name` does not).

Maybe that (corrected) definition needs to be repeated in the Firebird 4 
release notes.

  [1]: 
https://www.firebirdsql.org/file/documentation/release_notes/html/en/3_0/rnfb30-dml-windowfuncs.html

-- 
Mark Rotteveel