Minus operations on table

Hi everyone,
I am trying to find a way to do minus operations on table. I know this is possible in SQL, but I have yet to find out how to do it in ABAP. Can anyone help?
What I need to do is the following.
Let table A = (A,B,C,D,E) and table B = (B,C,E), then A minus B would return (A,D). Is there a function in ABAP for this?
Thank you very much in advance.
Philip R. Jarnhus

hello,
u can use subqueries:
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_NW04/helpdata/en/dc/dc7614099b11d295320000e8353423/content.htm
it is easy, but wrong way to solve your problem. This select will make a lot of calls to your DB.
better way:
1) two selects from table 1 and table 2 into two different internal tables.
define two internal tables in your code. One table should have standard tables type and another hashed tables type with unique.
2) subtract the result:
loop at it_1 into ls_1.
lv_tabix = sy-tabix.
read table lt_1 transporting no fields with table key column_name = ls_1-column_name.
check sy-subrc eq 0.
delete it_1 index lv_tabix.
endloop.
this solution will speed up your application.

Similar Messages

MINUS operation with remote table

Hi all,
Please help me with this problem.
I have two tables with 20 columns each, one table resides on one database and the other table is accesed through a db link. Both tables contains +800,000 records.
I need to know the record differences between these two tables - this is a periodical process, not for once- , I am using a MINUS operation with full scan, the problem is that my query is taking long time to finish : +20 min. Also i tried witn COLUMN IN() instead MINUS but my query performance is worst.
Do you know another way to get the record differences with a better performance?
Thanks in advance
Edited by: Osymad on Jun 18, 2012 5:12 PM

Osymad wrote:
Hi all,
Please help me with this problem.
I have two tables with 20 columns each, one table resides on one database and the other table is accesed through a db link. Both tables contains +800,000 records.
I need to know the record differences between these two tables - this is a periodical process, not for once- , I am using a MINUS operation with full scan, the problem is that my query is taking long time to finish : +20 min. Also i tried witn COLUMN IN() instead MINUS but my query performance is worst.
Do you know another way to get the record differences with a better performance?
Thanks in advance
Edited by: Osymad on Jun 18, 2012 5:12 PMhttp://www.oracle.com/technetwork/issue-archive/2005/05-jan/o15asktom-084959.html
Search for "Comparing the Contents of Two Tables"
Cheers,

Minus operator versus 'not exists' for faster SQL query

Hi everybody,
Does anyone know if rewriting a query to use the MINUS operator instead of using NOT EXISTS in the query is faster, giving all else is the same?
Thanks very much!
Bill Loggins
801-971-6837
[email protected]

It really depends on a bunch of factors.
A MINUS will do a full table scan on both tables unless there is some criteria in the where clause of both queries that allows an index range scan. A MINUS also requires that both queries have the same number of columns, and that each column has the same data type as the corresponding column in the other query (or one convertible to the same type). A MINUS will return all rows from the first query where there is not an exact match column for column with the second query. A MINUS also requires an implicit sort of both queries
NOT EXISTS will read the sub-query once for each row in the outer query. If the correlation field (you are running a correlated sub-query?) is an indexed field, then only an index scan is done.
The choice of which construct to use depends on the type of data you want to return, and also the relative sizes of the two tables/queries. If the outer table is small relative to the inner one, and the inner table is indexed (preferrable a unique index but not required) on the correlation field, then NOT EXISTS will probably be faster since the index lookup will be pretty fast, and only executed a relatively few times. If both tables a roughly the same size, then MINUS might be faster, particularly if you can live with only seeing fields that you are comparing on.
For example, if you have two tables
EMPLOYEE
EMPID      NUMBER
NAME       VARCHAR2(45)
JOB        VARCHAR2(45)
HIRE_DATE DATE
and
RETIREE
EMPID      NUMBER
NAME       VARCHAR2(45)
RET_DATE   DATEIf you wanted to see if you had retirees that were not in the employee table, then you could use either MINUS or NOT EXISTS (or even NOT IN, but you didn't ask). However you could possibly get different results.
SELECT empid,name
FROM retirees
MINUS
SELECT empid,name
FROM employeeswould show retirees not in the emp table, but it would also show a retiree who had changed their name while retired. A safer version of the above using MINUS would be
SELECT empid,name
FROM retirees
WHERE empid IN (SELECT empid
                FROM retirees
                MINUS
                SELECT empid
                FROM employees)A full scan of retirees, a full scan of employees (Assuming indexes on both, then maybe an index fast full scan) and two sorts for the minus, at best an index probe then table access by rowid on retirees, possibly a full scan of retirees for the outer query.
Assuming that employees is indexd on empid then
SELECT empid,name
FROM retirees
WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1
                  FROM employees
                  WHERE retirees.empid = employees.empid)requires a full scan of retirees and an index access into employees index for each row.
As with most things SQL, the only real way to tell is to benchmark.
HTH
John

Minus operator abnormal behavior question

Oracle 10gR2/Oracle 11g on Windows 2003 R2 32-bit
There is a very weird query with minus, it is basically:
select id from table1 where xxxx --> query 1
minus
select id from table1 where xxxx --> query 2the queries are against the same table, only difference is the where clause. There are 3rd party implemented type and index being used in the where clause in both queries.
query 1 returns 100 records (i.e. all the records in table1), query 2 returns 0 record.
but with the minus operator, it returns 1 record.
If I modify query 2, remove the 3rd party type/index, use another filter that will return 0 record too, then the minus query returns 100 records correctly.
If I modify the whole query to use not in/not exist instead of minus, then query returns 100 records correctly.
Question: is it possible the 3rd party type/index can cause the minus operator to behave this way?
Edited by: modeler on Nov 18, 2009 3:15 PM
Edited by: modeler on Nov 18, 2009 3:16 PM

Is there any way you can put together a representative test case that we can test here?

MINUS operator fetches invalid record count

Hi,
One of the application team complained that oracle MINUS operator fetches an invalid record count after data load.
Here are the details of the data load:
They are using source as PROD and target as UAT.
They are replicating the data on UAT environment in schema A from fetching the data in PROD from the same schema.
After load when we query the count of records in UAT it shows more records in target, that is in UAT, than PROD.
When they use MINUS operator to fetch the extra records in UAT, it shows no rows selected.
SQL> select 'A' count(1) from A.UAT union all select 'A' count(1) from A.PROD@BISLSPD1;
A COUNT(1)
A.UAT 19105022
A.PROD 19104995
SQL> select distinct count(*) from (select distinct DW_DISCOUNT_KEY, DW_DISCOUNT_MODIFIER_KEY from A.UAT minus select distinct DW_DISCOUNT_KEY, DW_DISCOUNT_MODIFIER_KEY from A.PROD@BISLSPD1);
COUNT(*)
0
SQL> select distinct DW_DISCOUNT_KEY, DW_DISCOUNT_MODIFIER_KEY from A.UAT minus select distinct DW_DISCOUNT_KEY, DW_DISCOUNT_MODIFIER_KEY from A.PROD@BISLSPD1
no rows selected
Please note that both are partitioned tables and they are using Informatica Data Replication 9.5 tool to populate the data from source to target.
Not sure if this could be a bug or an issue.
PROD DB Version: 10.2.0.5
UAT DB Version: 10.2.0.5
Both are in Linux 2.6
Please throw some light on this.

974065 wrote:
SQL> select 'A' count(1) from A.UAT union all select 'A' count(1) from A.PROD@BISLSPD1;
A                  COUNT(1)
A.UAT                     19105022
A.PROD                   19104995
SQL> select distinct count(*) from (select distinct DW_DISCOUNT_KEY, DW_DISCOUNT_MODIFIER_KEY from A.UAT minus select distinct DW_DISCOUNT_KEY, DW_DISCOUNT_MODIFIER_KEY from A.PROD@BISLSPD1);
COUNT(*)
0
SQL> select distinct DW_DISCOUNT_KEY, DW_DISCOUNT_MODIFIER_KEY from A.UAT minus select distinct DW_DISCOUNT_KEY, DW_DISCOUNT_MODIFIER_KEY from A.PROD@BISLSPD1
no rows selected
Given that you've go "distinct" in your query, you're eliminating duplicates from each table (and MINUS implicitly means distinct anyway). Check for duplicates (of dw_discount_key, dw_discount_modifier_key) in both tables.
If the combination is actually unique, I would check that you actually had the raw results the right way round - MINUS is not symmetrical, and for a complete picture you need to look at (select from uat minus select from prod) union all (select from prod minus select from uat)
Regards
Jonathan Lewis

Error while doing MINUS operation

Hi ,
i am using MINUS operation.I am getting the error
*State: HY000. Code: 10058. [NQODBC] [SQL_STATE: HY000] [nQSError: 10058] A general error has occurred. [nQSError: 59019] All of the input streams to the Union operator should have an identical number of columns and union compatible data types. (HY000)*
I used same data type and i checked with rpd also its working fine.Where is the problem .Can any one help me out??
Thanks,
Saichand.V

hi,
Thanks for u quick response
Those are from two Different tables.in Fx i didn't used any operations.Just pulled certain columns.one column is prompted in both the reports.

Error using minus operator

table a
=========
id (number),name varchar2,dt date
10,'aaa','01-01-2006'
11,'bbb','01-01-2007'
table b
======================
id varchar2,name varchar2,dt varchar2
'10','aaa','01-01-2006'
is it possible to find out which row is not in table b but it is in table a
i have tried out using minus operator but it return error (ora-01790-expression must have same datatype.

ora-01790-expression must have same datatypeAnd what is it precisely is it about that error message which is confsuing you?
SQL> select 1 from dual
2 minus
3 select dummy from dual
4 /
select 1 from dual
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-01790: expression must have same datatype as corresponding expression
SQL> select to_char(1) from dual
2 minus
3 select dummy from dual
4 /
T
1
SQL> Cheers, APC

Instead of Minus operation any other ?

Hi,
Master Table : book_master
Master_Pk_No Book_Name Version_no I_User Initial_id
10 Book1 0 XXX 10
20 Book1 1 XXX 10
30 Book1 2 XXX 10
# Initial id will be same as Master_Pk_No first number
# I have to take the latest version ( 2 ) and compare with the older version if any records
are availble in older version i have to fetch that and append that with the
Child Table : source
C_PK_NO SEQ_SOURCE UNIT_SEQ O_User
10 1 1 XXX
10 2 1 abc
10 3 2 abc
10 4 1 ggg
10 5 2 ggg
10 6 3 abc
10 7 4 abc
20 1 1 XXX
20 2 1 abc
20 3 2 abc
20 4 1 ggg
20 5 2 ggg
20 6 1 zzz
30 1 1 XXX
30 2 1 abc
30 3 2 abc
30 4 1 ggg
30 5 2 ggg
30 6 2 XXX
SELECT seq_source, o_user, unit_seq
FROM SOURCE
WHERE c_pk_no IN ( SELECT master_pk_no FROM AER
WHERE book_name = 'Book1'
AND version_no = 0 )
MINUS
SELECT seq_source, o_user, unit_seq
FROM SOURCE
WHERE c_pk_no IN ( SELECT master_pk_no FROM AER
WHERE book_name = 'Book1'
AND version_no = 2) ;
If i execute this query i will get the below result .
C_PK_NO SEQ_SOURCE UNIT_SEQ O_User
10 6 3 abc
10 7 4 abc
SELECT seq_source, o_user, unit_seq
FROM SOURCE
WHERE c_pk_no IN ( SELECT master_pk_no FROM AER
WHERE book_name = 'Book1'
AND version_no = 1 )
MINUS
SELECT seq_source, o_user, unit_seq
FROM SOURCE
WHERE c_pk_no IN ( SELECT master_pk_no FROM AER
WHERE book_name = 'Book1'
AND version_no = 2) ;
C_PK_NO SEQ_SOURCE UNIT_SEQ O_User
20 6 1 zzz
is it possible to achieve this without minus operation ?
Regards,
KBG.

And here is the test:
SQL> WITH BOOK_MASTER AS(
2                      SELECT 10 master_pk_no,'Book1' book_name,0 version_no,'XXX' i_user,10 Initial_id from dual union all
3                      SELECT 20,'Book1',1,'XXX',10 from dual union all
4                      SELECT 30,'Book1',2,'XXX',10 from dual
5                     ),
6           SOURCE AS (
7                      SELECT 10 c_pk_no,1 seq_source,1 unit_seq,'XXX' o_user from dual union all
8                      SELECT 10,2,1,'abc' from dual union all
9                      SELECT 10,3,2,'abc' from dual union all
10                      SELECT 10,4,1,'ggg' from dual union all
11                      SELECT 10,5,2,'ggg' from dual union all
12                      SELECT 10,6,3,'abc' from dual union all
13                      SELECT 10,7,4,'abc' from dual union all
14                      SELECT 20,1,1,'XXX' from dual union all
15                      SELECT 20,2,1,'abc' from dual union all
16                      SELECT 20,3,2,'abc' from dual union all
17                      SELECT 20,4,1,'ggg' from dual union all
18                      SELECT 20,5,2,'ggg' from dual union all
19                      SELECT 20,6,1,'zzz' from dual union all
20                      SELECT 30,1,1,'XXX' from dual union all
21                      SELECT 30,2,1,'abc' from dual union all
22                      SELECT 30,3,2,'abc' from dual union all
23                      SELECT 30,4,1,'ggg' from dual union all
24                      SELECT 30,5,2,'ggg' from dual union all
25                      SELECT 30,6,2,'XXX' from dual
26                     )
27 SELECT s.seq_source,
28          s.o_user,
29          s.unit_seq
30    FROM SOURCE s,
31          BOOK_MASTER a
32    WHERE s.c_pk_no = a.master_pk_no
33      AND a.book_name = 'Book1'
34      AND a.version_no IN (0,2)
35    GROUP BY s.seq_source,
36             s.o_user,
37             s.unit_seq
38    HAVING MAX(a.version_no) = 0
39 /
SEQ_SOURCE O_U   UNIT_SEQ
         6 abc          3
         7 abc          4
SQL> WITH BOOK_MASTER AS(
2                      SELECT 10 master_pk_no,'Book1' book_name,0 version_no,'XXX' i_user,10 Initial_id from dual union all
3                      SELECT 20,'Book1',1,'XXX',10 from dual union all
4                      SELECT 30,'Book1',2,'XXX',10 from dual
5                     ),
6           SOURCE AS (
7                      SELECT 10 c_pk_no,1 seq_source,1 unit_seq,'XXX' o_user from dual union all
8                      SELECT 10,2,1,'abc' from dual union all
9                      SELECT 10,3,2,'abc' from dual union all
10                      SELECT 10,4,1,'ggg' from dual union all
11                      SELECT 10,5,2,'ggg' from dual union all
12                      SELECT 10,6,3,'abc' from dual union all
13                      SELECT 10,7,4,'abc' from dual union all
14                      SELECT 20,1,1,'XXX' from dual union all
15                      SELECT 20,2,1,'abc' from dual union all
16                      SELECT 20,3,2,'abc' from dual union all
17                      SELECT 20,4,1,'ggg' from dual union all
18                      SELECT 20,5,2,'ggg' from dual union all
19                      SELECT 20,6,1,'zzz' from dual union all
20                      SELECT 30,1,1,'XXX' from dual union all
21                      SELECT 30,2,1,'abc' from dual union all
22                      SELECT 30,3,2,'abc' from dual union all
23                      SELECT 30,4,1,'ggg' from dual union all
24                      SELECT 30,5,2,'ggg' from dual union all
25                      SELECT 30,6,2,'XXX' from dual
26                     )
27 SELECT s.seq_source,
28          s.o_user,
29          s.unit_seq
30    FROM SOURCE s,
31          BOOK_MASTER a
32    WHERE s.c_pk_no = a.master_pk_no
33      AND a.book_name = 'Book1'
34      AND a.version_no IN (1,2)
35    GROUP BY s.seq_source,
36             s.o_user,
37             s.unit_seq
38    HAVING MAX(a.version_no) = 1
39 /
SEQ_SOURCE O_U   UNIT_SEQ
         6 zzz          1
SQL> SY.

MINUS Operator in OBIEE 11g

Hi all ,
I have a requirement to use MINUS operator in a column of a report . Since it is available for two separate criteria , Could someone suggest how to perform the same in OBIEE 11g for a column.
the conditions to be implemented in a column are
select count(*) from (
select distinct trx.shipment_header_id
from
F_ERP_PO_RECEIPTS_TRX trx
where   trx.transaction_type = 'RECEIVE'
MINUS
select distinct rec.shipment_header_id
from
where   trx.transaction_type = 'DELIVER').
How can i perform these conditions for a column of a report .
Reg,
Niv D

Hi Niv D,
I guess this can be done as we have union, union all and minus available.
once you select the required subject area say SA for the below query,
select distinct trx.shipment_header_id
from
F_ERP_PO_RECEIPTS_TRX trx
where   trx.transaction_type = 'RECEIVE'
on the right side of the criteria you can see a + symbol with venn diagram. once you click on it, it gives you an option to select the next SA for
select distinct rec.shipment_header_id
from
where   trx.transaction_type = 'DELIVER').
once you selected that, you can see the criteria changes accordingly.
there you change to union or minus.
once you have the conditions for both, make the layout as pivot and apply count on the column. you are there with the result,
I tried earlier with union but not with minus. but this should work.
Regards,
KN
ebs2obiee.wordpress.com

The MINUS operator in SQL

Hi
i use this minus operator to find the non matching row of the second query.
after looking at the reasult of this query , i searched the one result in the second query alone i could see the data.
it's worng The MINUS query returns all rows in the first query that are not returned in the second query.
in my case it's returning the rows which returned by the second query.
(select distinct lower(trim(to_char(sso))),lower(trim(to_char(region))),to_date(expiration_date,'DD-MM-YY') from ca_ourc_view
where rownum <1001
minus
(select distinct lower(trim(to_char(sso))),lower(trim(to_char(region))),to_date(expiration_date,'DD-MM-YY') from ourc_members_v1@gesprd
where rownum <1001
)thanks
Raj

in my case it's returning the rows which returned by the second query.can't happen like this
for example
SQL> select * from scott.emp where empno=7369
2 minus
3 select * from scott.emp where empno=7499;
EMPNO ENAME JOB MGR HIREDATE SAL COMM DEPTNO
7369 SMITH CLERK 7902 17-DEC-80 800 20

Use of double Minus operator....

Hi ,
I have a situation where i need to use the minus operator in such a way that:
<sql_statement_A>
Minus
<sql_statement_B>
Minus
<sql_statement_C>
The resulting row set will return rows from sql_statement_A minus rows from sql_statement_B or sql_statement_A minus rows from sql_statement_C... Is the above sql pattern is correct....or , do i need to write two views
<sql_statement_A>
Minus
<sql_statement_B>
and
<sql_statement_A>
Minus
<sql_statement_C>
and one third making Union of the two above...????
many thanks,
Simon

If in doubt, use parentheses to make them run the way you want.
So..
(<sql_statement_A>
minus
<sql_statement_B>)
minus
<sql_statement_C>
Just like OR conditions in the where clause, grouping with parentheses will greatly help those who come later to maintain it. And this looks simpler and more efficient than using two minus operations and combining the result.

IW31/32 Operation User Status visible as a field on Operation tab table

Hello,
Is there a way to add the "Operation User Status" as a field visible on the Operation tab table for IW31/32.
Your help will be very much appreciated.
Thanks.

jay23r
Not as standard.. and its the same with the used-fields which should be displayed on the Operation tab table (it is in the task list..)
I don't know why SAP haven't sorted these out...
Open an OSS Message to SAP - the more requests they get, the more chance there is of them fixing it in the future
What we have done a few times in the past is to utilise the Header Enhancement tab (user-exit IWO10018) to add a table control to show these fields. Its not elegant, but it works
PeteA

Using the minus operator

I am very new to oracle and am working with the minus operator to run a query. I could use some help!
Here is the query I am working on:
select suppliername, partname
from quote
where partname = 'hammer'
minus
select suppliername, partname
from quote
where partname = 'hammer';
HOW DO I GET THE QUERY TO DISPLAY ONLY THE ROWS OF SUPPLIERNAMES THAT SUPPLY ONLY HAMMERS?
I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE SOME CLARIFICATION.

HOW DO I GET THE QUERY TO DISPLAY ONLY THE ROWS OF SUPPLIERNAMES THAT SUPPLY ONLY HAMMERS?It may, for some data related reason, give you the result you were expecting, but this query does not answer that question because you have included partname in the MINUS.
E.g.
WITH quote AS
(SELECT 'BOB' suppliername, 'HAMMER' partname FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 'BOB' suppliername, 'SPANNER' partname FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 'TIM' suppliername, 'HAMMER' partname FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 'JACK' suppliername, 'HAMMER' partname FROM DUAL)
SELECT suppliername, partname
FROM   quote
MINUS
SELECT suppliername, partname
FROM   quote
WHERE partname != 'HAMMER';
SUPPLIERNAME PARTNAME
BOB          HAMMER
JACK         HAMMER
TIM          HAMMER   Clearly this is wrong because Bob supplies spanners (aka wrench).
However:
WITH quote AS
(SELECT 'BOB' suppliername, 'HAMMER' partname FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 'BOB' suppliername, 'SPANNER' partname FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 'TIM' suppliername, 'HAMMER' partname FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 'JACK' suppliername, 'HAMMER' partname FROM DUAL)
SELECT suppliername
FROM   quote
MINUS
SELECT suppliername
FROM   quote
WHERE partname != 'HAMMER';
SUPPLIERNAME
JACK
TIM          Amongst the many alternatives - NOT EXISTS:
WITH quote AS
(SELECT 'BOB' suppliername, 'HAMMER' partname FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 'BOB' suppliername, 'SPANNER' partname FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 'TIM' suppliername, 'HAMMER' partname FROM DUAL UNION ALL
SELECT 'JACK' suppliername, 'HAMMER' partname FROM DUAL)
SELECT *
FROM   quote q1
WHERE NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1
                   FROM   quote q2
                   WHERE q2.suppliername = q1.suppliername
                   AND    partname != 'HAMMER');
SUPPLIERNAME PARTNAME
JACK         HAMMER
TIM          HAMMER

JAVA operator precedence table is wrong.

I can not understand why JAVA auto-increment/decrement operator does not follow the rules of Operator Precedence table at http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/nutsandbolts/operators.html
The precedent order is as follow:
postfix: expr++ expr--
unary: ++expr --expr +expr -expr ~ !
multiplicative: * / %
From the above we know that x++/x-- is higher then ++x/--x and multiplicative is the lower then both.
I tested the following in JAVA:
int y,x = 2;
y = --x * x++;
System.out.println(x); //Output is 1.
Why?
Theoretically, x++ must be performed before --x, finally then the multiplication (*) and the answer should be
x++ value=2, stored variable=3
--x value=2, stored variable=2
Therefore 2 * 2 = 4.
Why JAVA is not following the rules that it setup for itself??
After much research, my conclusion is JAVA Operator Precedence table in java.sun.com website is wrong. The right version should be the same as this website: http://www.sorcon.com/java2/precedence.htm.
Please run your example code in JAVA before you want to prove me wrong.
Thank you.

Hi jsalonen, thank you for your reply. Yes, I see your theory but sorry to say that I don't agree with you. Let's take your example -x++ for our discussion below:
First let's agree with this:
x = 2;
y = -x;
System.out.println("y = " + y); // y = -2
System.out.println("x = " + x); // x = 2
From the above, we can see that by using the negation operator doesn't mean that we have changed the value of x variable. The system just assigns the value of x to the expression but still keeping the value of variable x. That's why we got the output above, agree?
Now, let's evaluate your example:
int y, x = 2;
y = -x++;
System.out.println("y = " + y); // -2
System.out.println("x = " + x); // 3
Hence below is the sequence of process:
1. -x is evaluated first. Value in variable x is assigned to the expression. At this point the value of x is 2 and this value get negated. However the variable x still storing 2.
2. Now x++ get evaluated, since this is a postfix increment operator, the value will get assigned first then increase. However x is already assigned, we can not assign it twice, just like if you perform x++ first, you have assigned x then increase and you didn't assign it again for the negation operator. If you did, x would be 3 and get negated to -3. Note that system also cannot perform 2++ because 2 is not a variable. Therefore it is logical to say that x is assigned to the expression and got negated by negation operator then increase the varaible x by 1. So here we increase the value of x by 1 and the result is 3. Therefore variable x is storing 3.
Now, try the follwing
x = 2;
y = -x + x++;
What is the value of x after -x? It's 2. Remember 2 is assign back to expression but x still retained the original value. If not we would expect x++ to be (-2)++, right?
But see the output for yourself:
System.out.println("y = " + y); // 0
System.out.println("x = " + x); // 3
As for the subexpression theory, sorry to say that I don't agree with you as well. See the expression below:
y = -x + x++;
We can identify that there are 4 operators in this statement, right? (assignment operator, negation operator, addition operator and increment operator)
since JAVA has defined all the operators in the table and already given each of them a priory and associativity, I don't see any subexpression here. If yes why didn't they mention about subexpression rule in the table? Shouldn't that be defined explicitly so that it doesn't confuse people?
In conclusion, I still think that JAVA need to correct the operators precedence table at http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/nutsandbolts/operators.html so that they don't confused people for another 10 years. :) Moreover the table is not complete because it did not include . and [ ] and (params) operators.

Minus Operation Obiee

Hi All,
I have created a report utilizing the minus operation as follows:
Person_Wid (Filtered by a set of criteria selected by users via prompts)
minus
Person_wid (Filtered by another set of criteria selected by users via prompts)
I get the correct person_wids.
However I need to calculate count of the person_wid obtained in the result. Can someone tell me how I can achieve this.
Thanks

Hi David,
Thanks for ur suggestion. However the query I am trying to execute is
Person_Wid (Filtered by a set of criteria selected by users via prompts) ----->A
minus
Person_wid (Filtered by another set of criteria selected by users via prompts)--------->B
So when I implement what you suggested I get the count of only 'A'. It does not give me the row count of (A-B). Is there something I need to tweak?
Thanks,
Nikita

Minus operations on table

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for