Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email email@example.com
AW: The cause of -> "-3007 POS(1) Invalid sequence of DML and DDL statements"
From: Zabach, Elke (elke.zabachsap.com)
Date: Tue Jan 04 2005 - 01:37:11 CST
> For old sql queries in version 7.3 like:
> select a.*,b.*,c.*,d.* from a,b,c,d where
> a.id1 = b.id1 and a.id2 = c.id2 <...> on so on.
> if you alter this same query to use JOIN syntax instead of the equals
> conditions then the query runs in 184.108.40.206 &.19. If you add the old
> join syntax (+) then the query will run.
> I have a app (and some dbprocs) that are littered with these
> queries to get past the join performance issues of 7.3 versions so now
> stuck with a migrated instance but can't deploy the server because of
> non-functional queries. Are there some settings I can mod in the
> to allow .18/.19 to execute these old style queries without throwing
> -3007 error?
Maybe it is a little bit too early for me, but I am not sure to
Let me try to explain what I understood and then go on further:
Some time ago with 7.3 you tried to write some JOIN with the
syntax-element JOIN in and had performance trouble. Therefore you
changed to the syntax mentioned in your example.
Now you changed the server version to 7.5.00.18/19 and this
7.3-fine-working join results in -3007 all the time.
If you now change the syntax to that one with the JOIN-keyword in (you
first tried in 7.3, but then did not use because of the performance),
then it works correctly (and with acceptable performance).
If you use the 7.3-syntax with '=' in and add (+), thus changing the
meaning of the join to an outer join, it works without -3007 and gives
of course different results than that without (+).
That sounds, mhm, a little bit strange.
No, there is no setting of parameters to get rid of -3007. We first have
to find out what is going on. Then, perhaps...
If you select from these tables used in the join (just one table in the
from-clause): is there any trouble with -3007?
Are we talking about views or primary tables?
Please send the real select resulting in -3007, the real working selects
with JOIN / (+) in and at least the vtrace for the -3007-resulting
select according to
(better: if the real-working selects are vtraced, too)
Please add the table definitions (and the view definitions if we are
talking about views) and the defined indexes for the tables concerned.
SAP Labs Berlin
MaxDB Discussion Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/maxdb