"Marc Lamothe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The subnet_number column is a varchar(16) which I assume you can compare
> with a text data type, which is what host() returns.
Are you on a pre-7.1 Postgres release? host() is buggy before 7.1 ---
it includes a trailing null in its output, which it s
Hi,
I'm having trouble using the host() and netmask() functions within a select
query. For some reason, the following query returns 1 row:
ipdb=> select id, subnet_number from subnet where subnet_number =
'216.46.13.0';
id | subnet_number
+---
96 | 216.46.13.0
(1 row)
Yet, if
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans=2DJ=FCrgen=20Sch=F6nig?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Surprisingly "-" is defined for (date, date).
What's surprising about that? It yields an integer number of days
between the dates:
regression=# select '2001-06-12'::date - '2000-06-12'::date;
?column?
--
3
Alexey Nalbat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, my question is: how can I get rid of this unnesesary "Sort" step
> in the execution plan for hash join?
You can't, because it's not unnecessary. Hash join doesn't promise
to produce its outputs in any particular order. But the Unique
filter needs
The "+" operator is not defined for (date, date) which seems very
logical to me since adding dates does in my opinion not make sense.
performance=# SELECT timestamp('2001-06-12'::date + '2000-06-12'::date);
ERROR: Unable to identify an operator '+' for types 'date' and 'date'
You will ha
How is the SQL command UNLOAD (informix) used to extract both data and
database architecture?
Is it able to create a file of SQL statements like when using postgresql's
command "pg_dump -f outputfile mydb"
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have yo
Hello.
I need to make some sql-statement to be executed as fast as possible. :) My database
consists of:
1) table of categories having 1'000 rows, 2) table of manufacturers having 1'000 rows,
3) table of
resellers having 1'000 rows, 4) table of products having 1'000'000 rows. In the
products t
The Hermit Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> SELECT distinct s.gid, s.created, count(i.title) AS images
> FROM status s LEFT JOIN images i ON (s.gid = i.gid AND i.active),
> personal_data pd, relationship_wanted rw
>WHERE s.active AND s.status != 0
> AND (s.gid = pd.gid
Yes. It depends on what exactly you want for the update/delete cases
on permissions. I believe that in any cases you can use the
check function that's used by the fk implementation to do the
insert/update check on objects. If you don't mind update/deletes
on permission failing if the row being
Got it after a bit of fiddling ... actually, not bad code ...
SELECT distinct s.gid, s.created, count(i.title) AS images
FROM status s LEFT JOIN images i ON (s.gid = i.gid AND i.active),
personal_data pd, relationship_wanted rw
WHERE s.active AND s.status != 0
AND (s.gid =
Okay, not sure best way to try and describe this ... have multiple tables,
of a form like:
table a
gid int
data text
table b
gid int
data text
table c
gid int
data text
table d
gid int
data text
I want to return:
a.gid,a.data,b
Does anyone know how I can make a constraint on a key to enforce a 1
to n relationship where n>0?
I've invented an example to show the sort of constraint I need:
CREATE TABLE permissions (
id int4,
userid int4,
perm int4,
primary key (id,userid)
);
CREATE TABLE objects (
id int4,
per
12 matches
Mail list logo
