I'm struggling to find an appropriate efficient query for an aggregate-type
problem and I'd appreciate suggestions.
I have messages associated with a set of locations (zero or more messages
per location). A cut down test is as follows:
CREATE TABLE location (ident char(4), node point);
INSERT I
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 12:49:18 +0100,
Julian Scarfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm struggling to find an appropriate efficient query for an aggregate-type
> problem and I'd appreciate suggestions.
>
> I have messages associated with a set of locations (zero or more messages
> per location).
"JOE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am debugging a performance problem with a view. I have narrowed down the=
> problem to when I adeed columns to my view.
Okay, I see the problem: it is in fact a bug, and one that's been around
for awhile. (Curious no one's noticed before.) When you wrote
"Julian Scarfe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> SELECT location.ident, node, count(*) from location, message
> WHERE location.ident = message.ident
> GROUP BY location.ident;
> ERROR: Attribute location.node must be GROUPed or used in an aggregate
> function
> it obviously fails. If node were an
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:17:15 +0900
"Masaru Sugawara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 16:04:21 +0200
> Andre Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > I want to compare if a tuple in c exist in b for each c.d_id and b.a_id.
> > In c exists 3 tuples: (1,2), (3,4), (5)
> > and w
