Hugo Kornelis (1/4/2011)

---

I replied wrong - I saw the rollback after the truncate, assumed the question intended to test my understanding that a truncate can be rolled back, and then replied. I had not seen the missing ALL after the UNION operators, nor noticed the duplicate row.

Hugo,
The knowledge tested is good, but the way the question has been built suggests to me that the author tried to trick people into overlooking key elements

sjimmo (1/4/2011)

---

Got it wrong, but learned something - which is the key



Many have said, and usually do of most questions that the QOD's are tricks but I question the abilities of many. Don't take offense, but answer this (not necessarily to me) - a portion of many DBA's time is spent reviewing code from developers who have varing levels of expertise in writing SQL code. Isn't part of what we are supposed to be doing looking for things such as this?

I know, fine one to talk when I got it wrong, but...

Hugo Kornelis (1/4/2011)

---

I replied wrong - I saw the rollback after the truncate, assumed the question intended to test my understanding that a truncate can be rolled back, and then replied. I had not seen the missing ALL after the UNION operators, nor noticed the duplicate row.

The knowledge tested is good, but the way the question has been built suggests to me that the author tried to trick people into overlooking key elements. It would have been better to make two questions, one about rolling back after truncate table (with no other elements to confuse the reader), and one that uses UNION and inserts a duplicate row (again, with no other elements to distract the reader).

Hardy21 (1/4/2011)

---

Same with me
Question is good but title is misleading.
I got it wrong but I like the way author wrote WHERE condition - value IN (column1, column2).

CirquedeSQLeil (1/4/2011)

---

I didn't like this question very much for the same reasons others have already noted. That said, I did learn a bit from it.