On Wed, 3 Jul 2013 22:49:51 -0500
"Jay A. Kreibich" wrote:
> So anyways, I don't actually care about the actual number of orders,
> which is mostly likely what my SQL query returns, I just want the
> ranking-- who is first, second, and third. I can get that from an
>
At 05:49 04/07/2013, you wrote:
´¯¯¯
But in the bigger context of this discussion, I think SQLite might
consider a row_number() function, or (my personal preference) some
type of virtual column, such as "_row_number_". I suggest that term,
since that's what Oracle, MS SQL Server, and
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 11:40:34AM +0100, Alex Bowden scratched on the wall:
>
> The SQL standard has always been a moving feast, chasing the field
> implementations, perfectly capable of going back on it's earlier
> mistakes, the main purpose of which, on a good day, is to promote
>
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 23:30:10 -0500
"Jay A. Kreibich" wrote:
> While rearranging the column order may not functionally change the
> answer, a database is not given that flexibility in SQL. For
> example, "SELECT *" *must* return the columns in the order they are
> defined
The SQL standard has always been a moving feast, chasing the field
implementations, perfectly capable of going back on it's earlier mistakes, the
main purpose of which, on a good day, is to promote standardisation of SQL
implementations and try and keep to the Relational Theory model where
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 10:52:20PM -0400, James K. Lowden scratched on the wall:
> "select *" is shorthand for "all columns". You'll note that what's
> returned isn't some kind of special '*' column, but all columns. The
> order in which the columns are returned isn't meaningful because the
>
Bravo Alex !!
From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org [sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org] on
behalf of Alex Bowden [a...@designlifecycle.com]
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 12:34 PM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: Re: [sqlite] Is there a way
On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 14:22:53 +0300
"Tony Papadimitriou" wrote:
> Just because you can select something doesn't mean you have to be
> able to sort by it.
Yes, it does.
> Can you sort by * (select * by table sort by *)?
You have confused syntax with semantics.
"select *"
Yes, you can sort by *
> -Original Message-
> From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org [mailto:sqlite-users-
> boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Tony Papadimitriou
> Sent: Monday, 1 July, 2013 05:23
> To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
> Subject: Re: [sqlite] Is there a way to return
> OK, you don't agree. Your opinion! (That doesn't make you right, though!)
If you approach the government france and explain that you're not really very
good at French, but if they made the following list of Chinese language
inclusions into French, then it would make it easier for you to
OK, you don't agree. Your opinion! (That doesn't make you right, though!)
I'm sure there will be a SQL engine somewhere that will do it for you.
We're talking about SQLite here, aren't we? If some other database can do
it, then you should also consider that it may also be able to do what
> Please! Just because you can select something doesn't mean you have to be
> able to sort by it.
There are a small number of exceptions, each of which is a bodge.
But some bodges are worth the impact.
> Can you sort by *
* is a very useful and largely harmless bodge.
There is
Please! Just because you can select something doesn't mean you have to be
able to sort by it. Can you sort by *
(select * by table sort by *)? So, why make it sound like I don't know what
I'm talking about?
-Original Message-
From: Alex Bowden
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 2:07 PM
13 matches
Mail list logo