Nis Jørgensen wrote:
> If you can't wait, you are probably better off working around the
> problem. Standard solution is to do:
>
> UPDATE master SET m2 = -m2;
> UPDATE master SET m2 = -m2+1;
>
> or something similar.
Would something like
UPDATE master set m2 = master2.m2
FROM (
SELECT m2 +1
FROM master m
WHERE m.master_id = master.master_id
ORDER BY m2 DESC
) master2
work? I think it might be faster (and possibly cause less index bloat)
than doing two consequent updates.
Haven't tested this though...
--
Alban Hertroys
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
magproductions b.v.
T: ++31(0)534346874
F: ++31(0)534346876
M:
I: www.magproductions.nl
A: Postbus 416
7500 AK Enschede
// Integrate Your World //
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
