Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Steve Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I realize this is certainly not the best design - but at this point in time
it can't be changed. The table
is rarely updated and never concurrently and is very small, typically less
than 100 rows so there really is
no performance impact.
Then the easiest way to renumber a table like that is to do something like:
create temp sequence myseq;
update table set idfield=nextval('myseq');
and hit enter.
and pray. :)
Hi Scott,
I am not sure that will do what I want. As an example
suppose I have 5 rows and the idfield is 1,2,3,4,5
now row 1 is updated, not the idfield but another column, then row 3 is deleted.
Now I would like to renumber them such that 1 is 1, 2 is 2, 4 is 4 , 5 is 4.
I don't think what you wrote will necessarily keep them in the same relative
order that they
were before.
Regards,
Steve
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
