Bernie Huang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> however, that might be troublesome, so I tried
> UPDATE table
> SET arr[1]=val1
> arr[2]=val2...
> but it didn't work.
Hmm, probably not ... I don't see any easy way around that, since
the array elements aren't really separate fields. Under the hood
Jouni Ahto wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Bernie Huang wrote:
>
> > I want to update the last three element without affecting other
> > elements. I could have done it by retrieving all elements in the array
> > first and the do a
> >
> > UPDATE table
> > SET arr='{"1","2","3","4","5"}'
> > WHERE
Hello,
Could someone please tell me that is there anyway that I can update only
a few elements in a Postgres array.
eg; I have an array of text, declared as 'text[]'.
{"1","2","3","4","5"} ==> {"1","2","7","8","9"}
I want to update the last three element without affecting other
elements. I
Patrick, Thanks. For some reason, I was typing EXIST and it wasn't
working--it's EXISTS! (OOPS--old habits)
I was talking to Jacques about this. After comparing performance using NOT
EXISTS, NOT IN, and even UNION vs. LEFT OUTER JOIN on an MS SQL 7 Server,
they all run at about the same speed.
Henry Lafleur wrote:
> Jacques,
>
> The problem with using the union in this way is that you get NULLs for a
> number weather or not it has an associated record in calls.
>
> To do a pure outer join, it would be something like this:
>
> select c.cdate, c.ctime, c.cextn, c.cnumber, n.ndesc
> from
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Brian Powell wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Working with PostGreSQL 7.02, I found the following problem:
PM/AM is already known bug and is already fixed in current CVS. In 7.1 it
will correct.
Karel
Henry Lafleur wrote:
> ...
> What I have always had trouble with, though, is if you have multiple fields
> for a primary key. For example, if a customer master table also had ship-to
> locations as the key and you wanted to get all customers and any orders for
> that customer, in rough ANSI SQL
