Aww man thank you so much! It worked like a charm! Have a smashing day :D
On Dec 10, 2007 9:43 AM, A. Kretschmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> am Mon, dem 10.12.2007, um 9:27:58 +0200 mailte Poovendran Moodley
> folgendes:
> > I'm not really sure how to the currval() method. I've read up on it a
Thanks for your hints so far.
I'm looking for both syntax simplicity and referential integrity. I'm using c++
with libpqxx, but I didn't find a good object-relational mapper. And I'm too
lazy to implement a whole persistency layer as I don't have a huge DB with many
relations.
I tried Andreas'
am Mon, dem 10.12.2007, um 11:42:04 +0100 mailte Stefan Scheidegger folgendes:
> Thanks for your hints so far.
>
> I'm looking for both syntax simplicity and referential integrity. I'm
> using c++ with libpqxx, but I didn't find a good object-relational
> mapper. And I'm too lazy to implement a w
am Mon, dem 10.12.2007, um 12:08:48 +0100 mailte A. Kretschmer folgendes:
> am Mon, dem 10.12.2007, um 11:42:04 +0100 mailte Stefan Scheidegger
> folgendes:
> > Thanks for your hints so far.
> >
> > I'm looking for both syntax simplicity and referential integrity. I'm
> > using c++ with libpqxx
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:29:15 +0100
> Von: "A. Kretschmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> An: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
> Betreff: Re: [SQL] INSERT INTO relational tables
> am Mon, dem 10.12.2007, um 12:08:48 +0100 mailte A. Kretschmer folgendes:
> > am Mon, dem
Poovendran Moodley escribió:
> I'm not really sure how to the *currval() *method. I've read up on it and I
> noticed it works with *nextval()* and *setval()*. The parameter for *
> currval()* is a regex - is there a regex to represent the most recently
> automatically generated number ( i.e. a seri
Hi,
I am having trouble with an insert rule that also does an update. It works
fine for a single insert but multiple inserts in a single statement don't
behave as I expected.
An outline of the problem is:
A table "trans" has a "client_id" and a transaction amount called "points".
Another table "
Ok, I've been playing around with this SQL some more and I found that if
I remove this:
e.active = '1'
from the query that the query now completes in 5 seconds. Nothing else
has anywhere near the impact of this boolean condition. So what is it
about this boolean field that is causing so much
--- On Mon, 12/10/07, Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am having trouble with an insert rule that also does an
> update. It works
> fine for a single insert but multiple inserts in a single
> statement don't
> behave as I expected.
Yup, that is the limitation of rules. They are only useful
On 11/12/2007, Gerry Reno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, I've been playing around with this SQL some more and I found that if
> I remove this:
> e.active = '1'
> from the query that the query now completes in 5 seconds. Nothing else
> has anywhere near the impact of this boolean condition. So w
10 matches
Mail list logo