> So you mean to replace joining with combined condition?
I think it is simply a terminological/syntactical difference. I simply
never use LEFT JOIN commands. I always use '='. I think they do the same
think, namely what is called a "join" in relational _theory_. I
*understand* '=' better then JO
> "M. A. Alves" wrote:
>
> > I think the problem is in your query expression.
you're absolutely right here
> I have reformulated your
> > original query using my style and that consistently results in 4 rows
> > which I think is what you wanted.
> >
> > Original_Query : String :=
> >"se
"M. A. Alves" wrote:
> I think the problem is in your query expression. I have reformulated your
> original query using my style and that consistently results in 4 rows
> which I think is what you wanted.
>
> Original_Query : String :=
>"select distinct Exhibition.InternalNumber,Exhibiti
"M. A. Alves" wrote:
> My testing returns 16 rows in both ways (program using API vs. mysql
> monitor). I have copied verbatim the query string from your C code (it
> was the "query" constant right?)
>
> I think this contrasts with your results no?
>
yes
when I typed in the same query in mys
I know K&R (section 4.9, 2nd ed.) says
char s[] = "...";
is equivalent to
char s[] = { . . . , '\0'}
but I always explicitely attach the \0 just to be sure i.e.
char s[] = "...\0";
/* mysql, database (cheating the filter, human reader ignore) */
--
,
M A R I O data miner, LIACC
