>
> A sample of the current results data would be like
> datesales
> 2008-03-07 100.00
> 2007-03-10 150.00
> 2007-03-18 50.00
>
> and what I'm trying to do is fill in the missing dates with sales
> values of 0.
what I do is have a table called days t
Hi, I've been working on a generic date partitioning system and I
think I've reached something that can't be done, but I thought I'd
post a question to the masses in the hope that I'm missing something.
The basic idea of what I'm doing is some userland scripts that will
accept a table name
Hi Jonah,
Just a postscript. It is important to check
both ways. Because (sometimes) vice versa is
not necessarily true. Case in point below:
blitzen=> select * from foo
blitzen-> except
blitzen->select * from moo;
alleleid | markerid | value | datecreated | datereplaced
--+
Hi Jonah,
> Still, you should UNION the result of
> both exceptions into a single result set.
Great suggestion. Many thanks.
Regards,
Tena Sakai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Jonah H. Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 3/20/2008 12:21 PM
To: Tena Sakai
Cc: pgsql-
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Tena Sakai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just a postscript. It is important to check
> both ways. Because (sometimes) vice versa is
> not necessarily true. Case in point below:
Yes, I'm well aware of that. Still, you should UNION the result of
both exceptions
Yes, Tom,
it looks like this:
Locked Transaction:458553
I misread that. Sorry for that, I am actually a Geographer and just "using" the
tools at hand. So I was not clear enough, it is a lock, but it's just the one
of the transaction, right. That still does not explain why the Query Editor
loc
Hm,
Tom, your're right, it works in the console, but not in the editor window,
strange...
--
Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
--
Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your s
Hello Tom,
> so the problem must be in something you didn't show us. What exactly
> are you doing to decide that you need to roll back? Also, none of these
> statements (except the CREATE) would take an exclusive lock on test, so
> there must be something else going on that you didn't show us.
"Jan Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I run the transaction block from above again I get first a unique
> key violation (that is ok, because that's what I trying to check for)
> but there is NO rollback to sp1, only the "Unique Key" error message
> and after that I get the dreaded "current
Hello Craig,
>
> Maybe you should tell the readers of this list a little more about what
> you're trying to do and why?
> --
ok, so I'll do that: I am programming a small economic Java simulation/serious
game that has to calculate the GDP after 12 rounds. For doing this, I need the
capital of
On Mar 20, 2008, at 7:10 AM, Joe wrote:
Gavin 'Beau' Baumanis wrote:
The copy is inside the same table, so I don't understand why it
(the required query ) would require any joins.
Ie. I want to copy the contents of a row (but for the id column -
of course) into a record in the same tabl
Jan Peters wrote:
Yes, you are correct: I just want to issue an insertion of a row at the very beginning of an
application start. So, when the table "test" is empty, the row with "runde =
0" should be inserted. If this row is already present, it should be updated.
This is quite common - yo
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> > Except that it doesn't work... Did you try to execute that query; I am
> > assuming not.
> Of course I did,
My bad... I did not run your query either, and based my assumption on my
previous attempt that ha
Hello Craig,
> Jan Peters wrote:
> > If I run the transaction block from above again I get first a unique key
> violation (that is ok, because that's what I trying to check for) but
> there is NO rollback to sp1, only the "Unique Key" error message and after
> that
> I get the dreaded "current tr
Gurjeet Singh wrote:
Except that it doesn't work... Did you try to execute that query; I am
assuming not.
Of course I did, do you think I create results by editing them into my
email?
The script:
delete from t1;
insert into t1 values (1, 123, 'first record');
insert into t1 values (2, 456, 's
Jan Peters wrote:
If I run the transaction block from above again I get first a unique key violation (that is ok, because
that's what I trying to check for) but there is NO rollback to sp1, only the "Unique Key" error
message and after that I get the dreaded "current transaction is aborted" err
Hello list,
I am a bit confused. See the code below:
BEGIN;
SAVEPOINT sp1;
INSERT INTO test(id,runde) VALUES(2, 0);
--if there is a unique key violstion:
ROLLBACK TO sp1;
UPDATE test SET id = 1000 WHERE runde = 0;
COMMIT;
When I first run this statement, I do not get any error message, but also
Hello list,
I am a bit confused. See the code below:
BEGIN;
SAVEPOINT sp1;
INSERT INTO test(id,runde) VALUES(2, 0);
--if there is a unique key violstion:
ROLLBACK TO sp1;
UPDATE test SET id = 1000 WHERE runde = 0;
COMMIT;
When I first run this statement, I do not get any error message, but also
Gurjeet Singh wrote:
Except that it doesn't work... Did you try to execute that query; I am
assuming not.
It does, or at least a query written to work the same way works fine for
me. Not only that, but at least in the presence of a unique index the
query planner optimises it to the same quer
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gavin 'Beau' Baumanis wrote:
> >
> > The copy is inside the same table, so I don't understand why it (the
> > required query ) would require any joins.
> >
> > Ie. I want to copy the contents of a row (but for the id column - of
> >
Gavin 'Beau' Baumanis wrote:
The copy is inside the same table, so I don't understand why it (the
required query ) would require any joins.
Ie. I want to copy the contents of a row (but for the id column - of
course) into a record in the same table.
I think what you want is something like
craig=# update x set val = foundrow.val from ( select val from x
where id = 2 ) as foundrow where id = 1 ;
UPDATE 1
Thinking about it, it'd actually be better written as:
UPDATE x SET val = foundrow.val FROM ( SELECT val FROM x AS x2 WHERE
x2.id = 2 ) AS foundrow WHERE id = 1;
... be
Hi Everyone,
I want to thank everyone for their help / suggestions...
I really appreciate it.
Though I think I have found a winner.
craig=# update x set val = foundrow.val from ( select val from x
where id = 2 ) as foundrow where id = 1 ;
UPDATE 1
Very elegant, very clean...
Very nice!
T
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 5:35 PM, Craig Ringer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> craig=# explain update x set val = foundrow.val from ( select val from x
> where id = 4123 ) as foundrow where id = 5912 ;
>
Thats nifty.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] gmail | hotmail | indiatimes | yahoo }.
Gavin 'Beau' Baumanis wrote:
The copy is inside the same table, so I don't understand why it (the
required query ) would require any joins.
Maybe you should use FROM clause in the update that references a
row-valued subquery?
craig=# create table x ( id serial, val integer );
NOTICE: CREATE
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Gavin 'Beau' Baumanis <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> HI Gurjeet,
> You're right.
>
> But what information do you need to know?
>
> The copy is inside the same table, so I don't understand why it (the
> required query ) would require any joins.
>
> Ie. I want to copy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> Ie. I want to copy the contents of a row (but for the id
> column - of course) into a record in the same table.
BEGIN;
CREATE TEMP TABLE tempfoo AS SELECT * FROM foo WHERE id = 123;
UPDATE tempfoo SET id = 456;
DELETE FROM foo WHERE id = 456;
HI Gurjeet,
You're right.
But what information do you need to know?
The copy is inside the same table, so I don't understand why it (the
required query ) would require any joins.
Ie. I want to copy the contents of a row (but for the id column - of
course) into a record in the same table.
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 4:19 PM, A. Kretschmer <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> am Thu, dem 20.03.2008, um 20:57:53 +1100 mailte Gavin 'Beau' Baumanis
> folgendes:
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > I have asked our DBA at work and h is not too sure either... so I
> > thought it best to on the list.
> >
> > B
am Thu, dem 20.03.2008, um 20:57:53 +1100 mailte Gavin 'Beau' Baumanis
folgendes:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I have asked our DBA at work and h is not too sure either... so I
> thought it best to on the list.
>
> Basically, what I am after is a way to copy the contents of one record
> into another.
Hi Everyone,
I have asked our DBA at work and h is not too sure either... so I
thought it best to on the list.
Basically, what I am after is a way to copy the contents of one record
into another.
Something like select into; but where the destination record already
exists, as opposed to cr
31 matches
Mail list logo
