Re: [GENERAL] count(1) return 0?

2004-02-29 Thread Zak McGregor
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 12:13:07 +1100 Klint Gore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 02:14:56 +0200, Zak McGregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > to return a 0 value instead of absolutely nothing if no rows match > > fixture=4916 and winner=away? I get absolutely no results at all. > > >

Re: [GENERAL] count(1) return 0?

2004-02-29 Thread Uwe C. Schroeder
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 What is it you want ? the count of rows matching the criteria ? If so a standard count(*) should do. If the resultset has no rows the count(*) will return 0 as result. On Sunday 29 February 2004 05:02 pm, Zak McGregor wrote: > On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 1

Re: [GENERAL] A simple question (under pressure :-))....

2004-02-29 Thread Doug McNaught
John Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Guys, > > I have approx. 8 hours to finish a deadline, so I can no longer spend time searching > google...haven't found the answer yet. > > In PG, is there not a way to select amongst databases? > > In other words, if I have one schema called sch1 and an

Re: [GENERAL] count(1) return 0?

2004-02-29 Thread Klint Gore
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 03:27:39 +0200, Zak McGregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > in fixture 4916, player 1200 won 9-0, but his opponent does not show as having 0 > in the second result set. I suspect what I am expecting is somehow illogical, > but I can't see why. > > I would expect to see a total of

[GENERAL] elog: out of memory

2004-02-29 Thread John Wells
Guys, One of my scripts (php) is returning "elog: out of memory". Can anyone tell me what this means? Haven't really found anything on the web yet except some code references And wouldn't you know it...script has function fine for some time, but 6.5 hours before deadline and it craps...

Re: [GENERAL] count(1) return 0?

2004-02-29 Thread Greg Stark
Zak McGregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > in fixture 4916, player 1200 won 9-0, but his opponent does not show as having 0 > in the second result set. I suspect what I am expecting is somehow illogical, > but I can't see why. It's illogical because the database would have no idea what fixture gr

Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL insert speed tests

2004-02-29 Thread Shridhar Daithankar
On Saturday 28 February 2004 21:27, Tom Lane wrote: > Shridhar Daithankar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Everything default except for shared_buffers=100 and effective > > cache=25000, > > 100? 1000.. That was a typo.. Shridhar ---(end of broadcast)-