Hello,
Whats wrong with just using CASE:
select id, usr, code,
case when code = 1 then 'A' else 'Z' end as line1,
case when code = 1 then 'A' else 'Z' end as line2 from tbl;
The code I showed in my last mail was actually test code only. The logic
is more complicated, and I'm not
Am trying to migrate some old data to a new database schema. I have
dumped the old data as SQL statements. The new datastructure just
contains some added fields to a few tables.
My plan was to just create a new database with the new structure, dump
the content only as SQL insert statements. And
Am Mittwoch, 11. August 2004 14:35 schrieb Lars Erik Thorsplass:
I would expect NULL fields not specified in the insert to get NULL
inserted automatically. But that fields which are NOT NULL in the
table structure gets inserted a NULL value too seems odd.
More accurately, the default value is
How can you display two tables side by side? Example:
select * from t1;
a | b
---+---
2 | 2
3 | 5
4 | 7
9 | 0
select * from t2;
c | d
---+---
4 | 5
7 | 3
3 | 2
1 | 1
2 | 0
Intended output:
a | b | c | d
---+---+---+---
2 | 2 | 4 | 5
3 | 5 | 7 | 3
4 | 7 | 3 | 2
9 | 0 | 1 | 1
|
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
David Garamond wrote:
How can you display two tables side by side? Example:
select * from t1;
a | b
---+---
2 | 2
3 | 5
4 | 7
9 | 0
select * from t2;
c | d
---+---
4 | 5
7 | 3
3 | 2
1 | 1
2 | 0
Intended output:
a
select
( select a from t1 where CAST(t1.oid AS int) - CAST( (select min(oid) from t1) AS
int ) = t_all.rownum ) AS a
, ( select b from t1 where CAST(t1.oid AS int) - CAST( (select min(oid) from t1) AS
int ) = t_all.rownum ) AS a
, ( select c from t2 where CAST(t2.oid AS int) - CAST( (select
Joe,
There is no in_array() function in Postgres that I'm aware of -- you
sure that isn't array_in()?
Yep. That's a cut-and-paste of the exact log message.
The rest of that error message doesn't seem
to be there in 7.4 either. Can we see the function?
Sure:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
Depending on the size of your structures, something like the below may
be significantly faster than the subselect alternative, and more
reliable than the ctid alternative.
CREATE TYPE result_info AS (a integer, b integer, c integer, d integer);
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION parallelselect()
Andreas Haumer wrote:
You could try to use PosgreSQL's ctid system column to join on like this:
test=# select *,ctid from t1;
a | b | ctid
- ---+---+---
2 | 2 | (0,1)
3 | 5 | (0,2)
4 | 7 | (0,3)
9 | 0 | (0,4)
test=# select *,ctid from t2;
c | d | ctid
- ---+---+---
4 | 5 | (0,1)
7
On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 09:33:08 +0530,
Kenneth Gonsalves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi,
any reason why the default reply-to on this list should not be set to the
list? I keep replying to postings only to find later that the reply goes to
the OP and not to the list. reply-all button results
On Aug 10, 2004, at 10:57 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I can't think of one, no. I think you will have to use one of the
server-side languages and call a sleep in there.
This is no good in the real world since it pounds the CPU, but it
worked well enough for my testing purposes.
Best,
John DeSoi,
Hi All,
I am relative PostGres newbie, so if there is a simple answer to this
question, please feel free to send me a link or explaination.
I am running Postgres 7.3 on a intel Linux Redhat 7.3 base.
I am getting two errors which are a bit confounding.
ERROR: pg_class_aclcheck:relation
Sorry about that, forgot to send to the list.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Lars Erik Thorsplass [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:18:24 +0200
Subject: Re: [SQL] Inserts with incomplete rows... NOT NULL constraints
To: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Am Mittwoch,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andreas Haumer wrote:
| test=# select * from t1 right outer join t2 on (t1.ctid=t2.ctid);
full outer join is better in this case.
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 09:33:08 +0530,
Kenneth Gonsalves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
any reason why the default reply-to on this list should not be set to the
list? I keep replying to postings only to find later that the reply goes to
the OP and not to the list. reply-all
faster than ones sent through the lists. It is also possible that the direct
replies might be handled differently by the recipient (e.g. a filter may put
them in different folders).
This is very true. In fact, I get mildly annoyed when people *don't*
include the direct reply to me,
Josh Berkus wrote:
[2] Wrong datatype for second argument in call to in_array
SQL: SELECT sf_event_decendants(66645,111)
Are you sure this message isn't coming from some PHP middleware, e.g.
peardb or something. See:
http://us2.php.net/manual/en/function.in-array.php
Joe
Thomas Seeber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am running Postgres 7.3 on a intel Linux Redhat 7.3 base.
Original 7.3 release, or (I hope) 7.3.something?
I am getting two errors which are a bit confounding.
ERROR: pg_class_aclcheck:relation 474653086 not found
Are there any views involved? Is
Joe,
Are you sure this message isn't coming from some PHP middleware, e.g.
peardb or something. See:
http://us2.php.net/manual/en/function.in-array.php
Hm ... possible. Will check with my PHP guy.
Would explain why I've not been able to track down the error.
--
-Josh Berkus
A
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 15:16:29 -0500,
David Stanaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is an example:
CREATE TABLE tablea(
id int PRIMARY KEY,
flag int
);
CREATE TABLE tableb(
aid int REFERENCES tablea(id),
flag int
);
INSERT INTO tablea VALUES(1,0);
INSERT INTO tablea
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 20:50:28 -0500,
David Stanaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had thought about that, but this is a simpler case of what I need to
do. The operations for each column in the update are dependent on the
current and new values of each row being merged.
Currently I am
21 matches
Mail list logo
