Re: [SQL] SQL problem: bank account

2003-06-02 Thread listrec
How about: select max(transaction_id) from bank_account group by customer_id Should work... Detlef -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Auftrag von Erik G. Burrows Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2003 07:30 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: [SQL] SQL problem

Re: [SQL] CASE returning multiple values (was SQL Help)

2003-06-02 Thread Richard Huxton
On Friday 30 May 2003 7:01 pm, C F wrote: > I was afraid someone was going to ask that :) > Okay, I'll do my best at explaining where I'm coming from [snip long but detailed description I asked for -thanks] Right - I've done something similar to this before, and I ended up building my SQL on

Re: [SQL] SQL problem: bank account

2003-06-02 Thread Sean Chittenden
> It seems to me this is a simple problem, but the solution eludes me. > > I have a table: > > bank_account ( > transaction_id int not null serial, > customer_id int not null references customer(id), > ts timestamp not null default now(), > amount float not null, > balance float not null

Re: [SQL] SQL problem: bank account

2003-06-02 Thread Andrew J. Kopciuch
> I need to get the most recent transaction for each customer. I need only > the transaction ID, but the entire row would be best. > Why don't you alter the customer table to hold the transaction ID of the most recent transaction? Some questions though: Do you vacuum the database regularly?

[SQL] SQL problem: bank account

2003-06-02 Thread Erik G. Burrows
It seems to me this is a simple problem, but the solution eludes me. I have a table: bank_account ( transaction_id int not null serial, customer_id int not null references customer(id), ts timestamp not null default now(), amount float not null, balance float not null, primary key(tra

Re: [SQL] generic return for functions

2003-06-02 Thread Josh Berkus
Avi, > I understand why it will not be implemented with overloaded functions. > Is there a possibility to allow this only for functions that are not > overloaded? Unfortunately, no. There's simply no way for the database to tell the difference between a function call relying on defaults, and

Re: [SQL] PostgreSQL and industry

2003-06-02 Thread Josh Berkus
Walid, > I am searching for big industrial project using PostgreSQL as a database > system manager. Can anyone give references or bibliograpghy other than > the official postgres site? advocacy.postgresql.org We're working on a case study section, but it's not ready yet. The biggest I can men

Re: [SQL] generic return for functions

2003-06-02 Thread Avi Schwartz
On Sunday, Jun 1, 2003, at 10:46 America/Chicago, Tom Lane wrote: Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: thing that causes me some minor grief is the fact that currently you=20 cannot have default values to function parameters, a feature we use a=20 lot. fn(integer, integer, integer default 32)

Re: [SQL] generic return for functions

2003-06-02 Thread Tom Lane
Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> thing that causes me some minor grief is the fact that currently you=20 >> cannot have default values to function parameters, a feature we use a=20 >> lot. > fn(integer, integer, integer default 32) > select fn(integer, integer); <- Third argument would be

Re: [SQL] generic return for functions

2003-06-02 Thread Avi Schwartz
Exactly. It is used with named parameters when the parameter is not provided. Avi On Sunday, Jun 1, 2003, at 07:21 America/Chicago, Rod Taylor wrote: thing that causes me some minor grief is the fact that currently you cannot have default values to function parameters, a feature we use a lot.