hello all,
i want to make dynamic sql query like this
select * from tb_cust where name='erick' and age='20'
to
select * from tb_cust $1
i have tried but error comeup
any suggestion?
thanks
Ricky
--
Gutten Aben Sugeng Sonten, Jangane Kurang Santen
bandeng
---
On May 18, 2005, at 3:52 PM, Chris Browne wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alain) writes:
Andrew Sullivan escreveu:
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 01:07:00PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Does Postgresql have a similar pseudo-column "ROWNUM" as Oracle? If
so, we can write the following query:
No. What is th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alain) writes:
> Andrew Sullivan escreveu:
>> On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 01:07:00PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>Does Postgresql have a similar pseudo-column "ROWNUM" as Oracle? If
>>>so, we can write the following query:
>> No. What is the purpose of your query? You coul
At Wed, 18 May 2005 19:54:08 +0200,
PFC wrote:
> > SELECT array_accum(x) FROM (SELECT * FROM some_view ORDER BY x) AS tmp;
>
> If you're using integers, you could use the int_array_accum or
> something from the intarray module which is a lot faster. I believe
> intarray also has a function
SELECT array_accum(x) FROM (SELECT * FROM some_view ORDER BY x) AS tmp;
If you're using integers, you could use the int_array_accum or something
from the intarray module which is a lot faster.
I believe intarray also has a function for sorting integer arrays...
BTW, the best alternative (in t
The only strange thing is that without the 3rd order by, the order is
wrong. I didn't expect it because each select is created ordered. Is it
expected that UNION mixes it all up? (using postgre 7.4.1)
That's because UNION removes duplicates, which it will probably doing
using a hash (EXPLAI
On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 12:42 -0300, Alain wrote:
> I found something that is both fast and simple (program side):
> ...
> subsequent selects are
> (select ... from tab WHERE skey=skey_last AND pkey>pkey_last
> ORDER BY skey,pkey LIMIT 100)
> UNION
> (select ... from tab WHERE s
I've got this funky problem. Basically I have a table that contains:
afl=# \d tblpis_survey_receipt
Table
"public.tblpis_survey_receipt"
Column | Type |
Modifiers
+---
Suppose I have a table containing a column with integer values:
CREATE TABLE some_table (x int NOT NULL);
INSERT INTO some_table values(1);
INSERT INTO some_table values(5);
INSERT INTO some_table values(3);
Also, there is a view to that table (probably superfluous here, but it's
in the actual mo
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=D6PFERL_Robert?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thus I run VACUUM ANALYZE; every night by cron. However I keep getting
> ERROR: tuple concurrently updated
Have you got other processes also doing VACUUM ANALYZE? The only known
reason for this to happen is that two processes concur
Hi,
I have got some kind of FIFO-queue table.
New records are inserted and the oldest are DELETEd.
Thus I run VACUUM ANALYZE; every night by cron. However I keep getting
ERROR: tuple concurrently updated
My research lead me to the point that this is VACUUM tothether with the
INSERTs being issued
Hi Ragnar (and others),
I found something that is both fast and simple (program side):
Allways assuming that: pkey is a primary key and skey is a sort key, and
there exists an index on (skey,pkey)
first select is
select ... from tab ORDER by skey,pkey LIMIT 100;
subsequent selects are
(select ... f
On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 23:16 -0300, Alain wrote:
>
> Ragnar Hafstað escreveu:
> >>[how to solve the get next 100 records problem]
> BUT, I think that this is close to a final solution, I made some
> preliminary test ok. Please tell me what you think about this.
>
> Fisrt let's state that I am re
13 matches
Mail list logo
