On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Rob Richardson <rdrichard...@rad-con.com> wrote: > I've been curious about this for a long time. The syntax for an INSERT query > is often much easier to use, in my opinion, then the syntax for an UPDATE > query. For example, and this is what I am trying to do, assume you have a > table of inner covers containing a name field and fields named x and y to > track where each cover is, and you have another table of permissible > locations for inner covers and other things, with fields containing the name > of the stored item, its type, and its x and y coordinates. > > I am resetting my database to initial conditions, so I am putting the inner > covers in their storage locations. I've already updated the storage location > table, and now I want to update the locations in the inner cover table. So I > want to do this: > > UPDATE inner_covers (X, Y) > SELECT sl.X, sl.Y FROM storage_locations sl where sl.name = inner_covers.name > > If I were doing an insertion, that syntax would work. But instead, I'm > forced to do this: > > UPDATE inner_covers > SET X = (SELECT sl.X FROM storage_locations sl where sl.name = > inner_covers.name), > Y = (SELECT sl.Y FROM storage_locations sl where sl.name = inner_covers.name) > > Or is there another, more convenient form of the UPDATE query that I'm not > familiar with? > > Thanks very much!
you have UPDATE FROM: UPDATE foo SET a=bar.a, b=bar.b FROM bar WHERE foo.id = bar.id; merlin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
