This is a follow up message to a earlier threat this week (which is included
in the message below)
Ok, here's the model table:
Table,Create Table
model,CREATE TABLE `model` (
`PID` tinyint(3) NOT NULL auto_increment,
`VendorID` tinyint(4) NOT NULL default '0',
`Model` varchar(15) NOT NULL
Roger Baklund wrote:
[...]
You are joining the model table on vendor.PID=model.VendorID, and
model.VendorID is not a primary or unique key, it could contain
duplicates.
... probably the four rows you want. This is ok. It's probably the other
join that causes the problem.
--
Roger
--
MySQL
Steve Grosz wrote:
This is a follow up message to a earlier threat this week (which is included
in the message below)
model,CREATE TABLE `model` (
PRIMARY KEY (`PID`)
vendor,CREATE TABLE `vendor` (
PRIMARY KEY (`PID`)
specs,CREATE TABLE `specs` (
PRIMARY KEY (`SpecID`)
Like Rhino
I'm curious, why if I enter this code:
select *
from vendor
left outer join model
on vendor.PID=model.VendorID
left outer join specs
on model.Model=specs.ProdModel
where vendor.Vendor='#URL.Vendor#'
do I get the results like:
http://www.scootervilleusa.com/test1.cfm?Vendor=Tank
I simply want 1 row
If you can tell me the command to dump the table format, I'm more than
happy to list it here.
Steve
Rhino wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Steve Grosz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 3:57 PM
Subject: Strange results
I'm curious, why if I
Steve Grosz wrote:
If you can tell me the command to dump the table format, I'm more than
happy to list it here.
SHOW CREATE TABLE FOO;
--
Use Rojo (RSS/Atom aggregator). Visit http://rojo.com. Ask me for an
invite! Also see irc.freenode.net #rojo if you want to chat.
Rojo is Hiring! -
Ok, here's the model table:
Table,Create Table
model,CREATE TABLE `model` (
`PID` tinyint(3) NOT NULL auto_increment,
`VendorID` tinyint(4) NOT NULL default '0',
`Model` varchar(15) NOT NULL default '',
PRIMARY KEY (`PID`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1
The vendor table:
- Original Message -
From: Steve Grosz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 3:57 PM
Subject: Strange results
I'm curious, why if I enter this code:
select *
from vendor
left outer join model
on vendor.PID=model.VendorID
left outer join specs
PROTECTED] wrote:
One of our developers came to me yesterday with strange results from
a query. I've created a simple version of the example. I've pasted
the table definitions at the bottom if someone really needs to see
them. This is on mysql 4.0.18.
insert into master (col1) values (1), (2
in 4.0.18?
- seb
---
David Griffiths [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of our developers came to me yesterday with strange results from a
query. I've created a simple version of the example. I've pasted the
table definitions at the bottom if someone really needs to see them.
This is on mysql 4.0.18
| 0 | 6 |
+--+-+-+
So could it be a bug in 4.0.18?
- seb
---
David Griffiths [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of our developers came to me yesterday with strange results from a
query. I've created a simple version of the example. I've pasted the
table definitions
One of our developers came to me yesterday with strange results from a
query. I've created a simple version of the example. I've pasted the
table definitions at the bottom if someone really needs to see them.
This is on mysql 4.0.18.
insert into master (col1) values (1), (2);
insert into sub
Before I think about this, which is it?
insert into master (col1) values (1), (2);
or
insert into master (col1) values (1), (2), (3);
Michael
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry - removed some data to make it clearer.
insert into master (col1) values (1), (2);
is correct.
David
Michael Stassen wrote:
Before I think about this, which is it?
insert into master (col1) values (1), (2);
or
insert into master (col1) values (1), (2), (3);
Michael
--
MySQL General Mailing
- Original Message -
From: Kapoor, Nishikant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 2:41 PM
Subject: very simple query but strange results
This little sql has me puzzled. Would appreciate your help.
mysql drop table if exists T;
Query OK, 0 rows affected
Rhino wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Kapoor, Nishikant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 2:41 PM
Subject: very simple query but strange results
This little sql has me puzzled. Would appreciate your help.
mysql drop table if exists T;
Query OK, 0
: Michael Stassen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Rhino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Kapoor, Nishikant [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: very simple query but strange results
Rhino wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Kapoor, Nishikant [EMAIL
Hey folks -
can anyone explain this behaviour:
mysql select token, spam_hits, innocent_hits from dspam_token_data where
uid=500 and token=14243385100413148122;
Returns this result, which is a completely different record.
+---+-++
| token
Is that a character field?
If it is, you forgot the quotes, and the string was converted to a number.
16 significant digits match.
Joakim Ryden wrote:
Hey folks -
can anyone explain this behaviour:
mysql select token, spam_hits, innocent_hits from dspam_token_data where
uid=500 and
It's a BIGINT(25).
On Tuesday 21 October 2003 11:58 am, gerald_clark wrote:
Is that a character field?
If it is, you forgot the quotes, and the string was converted to a number.
16 significant digits match.
Joakim Ryden wrote:
Hey folks -
can anyone explain this behaviour:
mysql
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:58:57 -0700, Joakim Ryden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a BIGINT(25).
Well there you go. Your number is too big for the field. BIGINT(25)
can (theoretically) DISPLAY up to 25 digits, but it is still bounded
by MySQL's internal limits, as documented here:
This was indeed the problem. See below.
It turns out MySQL's BIGINT doesn't handle all that big of an INT. :-/
Many thanks to bluejack.
--Jo
On Tuesday 21 October 2003 12:51 pm, bluejack wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:58:57 -0700, Joakim Ryden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It's a BIGINT(25).
Neculai Macarie wrote:
[]
select 'gallery' as table_name, d_image_small, d_image_big
from gallery
UNION
select 'gallery_categ' as table_name, d_image, NULL
from gallery_categ
order by table_name;
[]
select 'gallery' as table_name, d_image_small, d_image_big
from gallery
union
Neculai Macarie wrote:
To my observations constants in a column declaration limit the
column width to just fit the initial constant.
Your choice of values 'gallary' and 'gallery-categ' just masked that
out ;-)
Yes, you are right. Based on your observation I was able to trick him
with this
Hi!
Using Union and Order By gives strange behaviour in the following test-case:
drop table if exists gallery;
drop table if exists gallery_categ;
# create test tables
create table gallery (d_image_small char(100), d_image_big char(100));
create table gallery_categ (d_image char(100));
# insert
Neculai Macarie wrote:
[]
select 'gallery' as table_name, d_image_small, d_image_big
from gallery
UNION
select 'gallery_categ' as table_name, d_image, NULL
from gallery_categ
order by table_name;
[]
select 'gallery' as table_name, d_image_small, d_image_big
from gallery
union
select
I'm using the following query
SELECT DISTINCT a.addrdsp,a.listdate,a.solddate,a.lpricea,a.sprice
FROM archive a, archive b
WHERE a.status='s' AND a.addrdsp IS NOT NULL
AND a.addrdsp = b.addrdsp AND a.solddate b.solddate
AND date_add(a.solddate, interval 1 year) b.solddate
ORDER BY
I'm using the following query
SELECT DISTINCT a.addrdsp,a.listdate,a.solddate,a.lpricea,a.sprice
FROM archive a, archive b
WHERE a.status='s' AND a.addrdsp IS NOT NULL
AND a.addrdsp = b.addrdsp AND a.solddate b.solddate
AND date_add(a.solddate, interval 1 year) b.solddate
ORDER
Golubchik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 20 May 2001 22:44
To: technical Support
Subject: Re: Fulltext Strange Results...
Hi!
On May 20, technical Support wrote:
I have just done this:
select * from indexed_table where match(indexed_col)
against ('visual basic
Hello,
I did the following query against my indexed table:
select * from indexed_table where match(indexed_col)
against ('oracle +sybase +london')
It returned 16 rows of which only 4 rows included all words.
I then did:
select * from indexed_table where match(indexed_col)
against ('+oracle
30 matches
Mail list logo
