Right ok, I'll continue to doing this approach. The last example was a typo, I meant ds3. :)
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 7:33:39 PM UTC+3, Jeremy Evans wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 5:36:48 AM UTC-7, Aryk Grosz wrote: >> >> Yeah, I'm living on the edge over here! >> >> I tried it and it "kind of" works in that they sql works and on simple >> stuff I get the right results, BUT when I tried to replace the filter >> conditions in my code on complicated queries, my tests started failing >> because it wasn't returning the right results...so I'm not quite sure. >> >> I couldn't find any literature on the internet about "comma delimited >> subqueries with IN" clause so it must not be a thing to do... >> >> Curious what Jeremy thinks. >> > > I can say that: > > ds.exclude(id: [ds1, ds2]) > > is not likely to work correctly if ds1 and ds2 are datasets unless ds1 and > ds2 return a single row with a single column. > > I'm not sure what the problem is with using: > > ds = ds.exclude(id: ds1) if x > ds = ds.exclude(id: ds2) if z > ds = ds.exclude(id: ds2) if y > > That is certainly the approach I would use, though assuming your example > doesn't include a typo (ds2 used both for z or for y), I would do: > > ds = ds.exclude(id: ds1) if x > ds = ds.exclude(id: ds2) if z || y > > Thanks, > Jeremy > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sequel-talk" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sequel-talk/6bcd3344-76d6-44eb-8541-4bb055b3ee84o%40googlegroups.com.
