@PaulWhite you put this as a dupe, but none of the answers on the linked answers are correct for this scenario. Would it make sense to transfer my answer over and keep it as a dupe or undupify it? dba.stackexchange.com/questions/345403/…

Hmmm seems to depend which column you join on. If you explicitly join Extended.id table then it transforms to inner-join, if you join on Base.id then you still get the error even for the THEN DELETE because it keeps the right-join dbfiddle.uk/MijADflQ

Note in both cases it's attempting to write to Extended not Base.

@SeanGallardy What's your take on my bug report on the above feedback.azure.com/d365community/idea/…

@Charlieface It looks nice, love the font selection

wow, that price increase was really just for co-pilot

but the good news is that it is included in the price increase

Is that good news, though?

@SeanGallardy Aside from the styling... what about the actual bug?

i suppose it's better than paying for something and not getting it

like a vending machine on the fritz

just waiting for that payday to drop

@SeanGallardy Yes of course, imagine all those people having to actually add it on manually, why not have MS do it for you?

@Charlieface No idea, I try to stay far away from query stuff

I'm not a QO/QE fan

even ES not really a fan

sean only breaks hearts and availability groups

Used to be some utility companies would put T.O.L. (trying our luck) on your bill.

what.gif

may have been a joke idk

deadpan

Oh, I wouldn't put it past utility companies though - that's some straight up stuff they'd do

i'd send it back with T.O.T.O.T.

trying out tons of tannerite

Anything that gets special designations to constantly screw you while forcing you to use their crap product is already scammy, so it tracks

well electricity is a pretty good product i think

Forcing me to a provider and then allowing them to willy nilly charge for things is not. It's why I checked the codes for requirements on hooking up to local power, which isn't always a requirement.

I'll be my own electricity provider

starting your own coal plant?

Something like that

well at the very least i hope you get a decent bbq out of it

I use pellets these days, put it on a timer and walk away

oh dear

apparently one drive hadn't opened since november of last year

cpu fans on red alert

That and Teams are the first things I uninstall

i sometimes need to use onedrive as an alternative clipboard

🥴

Truly the end times are near

god i hope so

enough is enough

> -2 The row fetched is missing.

that seems bad

Is it missing missing or just misplaced? Do we need to call the police?

> INFO Completed parsing. Parsed 8008 build files in 117.26s.

maybe your nickname should be titters

@Charlieface That's expected. The whole basis of the issue is that the MATCH finds a row, then the UPDATE clause attempts to update it. Problem is, they're rows from different tables. The first row does exist, the second is the result of the outer join; it's not a real row. See my 𝕏 artcile.

paul 𝕏pects you to read and comprehend

@SeanGallardy Yeah the 'dupe' system is often not perfect. Your answer is the answer to his specific (arguably off-topic) question, thanks to debugging efforts in comments. The dupe target was suggested by another user. On balance, I think it is a useful signpost to that more general Q & A. I don't think it would make sense to merge the Q & As because they're not exact duplicates. Your answer would look strange on the other question. I'm open to changing things if people feel strongly about it.

Heaps of chatter about fans in here this morning, I notice

that question seems v. localized

@PaulWhite True even with an outer join it would still be correct, I was just saying it's interesting that it managed to work out that the outer join should be an inner join in the one case but not the other. In both of them we need an actual row to exist in Extended, but for slightly different reasons, in my case the join condition, in your case the merge update condition.

In the sense that merge is actually a full-join, and the optimizer usually knows that if you only have a THEN UPDATE then it can transform to inner-join, but that's not happened here.

@ErikReasonableRatesDarling That only happens with KEYSET cursors, right? Where the row has been deleted since the keyset was built?

@PaulWhite i don't know, i'm just docs grazing a bit

goddammit

🤣

@ErikReasonableRatesDarling That's my recollection, yes. I never test for -2 unless a keyset is a possible cursor outcome (not necessarily the requested type)

A keyset being a saved set of keys. It needs a lookup at runtime to fetch the rest of the row

A static cursor has the whole row saved in a worktable, so the issue cannot occur

A dynamic cursor only encounters row that exist as it moves around

there is not actually anything in the docs about which statusi are applicable to which cursor types

> -9 The cursor is not performing a fetch operation.

@PaulWhite Yeah I don't know the best way either, that's why I asked.

okie dokie

@SeanGallardy We're all as confused and bewildered as each other then. Normal, in other words. Carry on

@ErikReasonableRatesDarling You sound surprised

i am not

> We're all as confused and bewildered as each other then. Normal, in other words. Carry on

Xeon 6 R1S products announced, already looking at supermicro boards @HannahVernon