ajay roy wrote:
i am getting the error somthing like that
GET ERROR(127) TABLE HANDLER PROBLEM
stormcrow|~$ perror 127
Error code 127: Unknown error 127
MySQL error: 127 = Record-file is crashed
--
raj shekhar
facts: http://rajshekhar.net | opinions: http://rajshekhar.net/blog
I dare
Ajay,
To lookup the string for an error code use the perror utility:
$ perror 127
MySQL error code 127: Record-file is crashed
Try running repair table.
See http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/repair.html for more details.
-Eric
On 12/17/06, ajay roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i am getting
i am getting the error somthing like that
GET ERROR(127) TABLE HANDLER PROBLEM
i am sorry that i coulde not take mysqlbug script
thanks
ajay,hyderabad,india
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
Bit of a problem with MySQL and bug reports. The README in the source
distribution says to use http://bugs.mysql.com, with no alternatives
given. On http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/bug-reports.html
(which I had to find with google), I see
If you have no Web access and cannot report
guys,
strange things happen when using COUNT() in subqueries. even the use of
HAVING in a SELECT statement turns up a weired result, as it should work
on the result set and should be filtered while rows are returned to the
client.
(you can find the selects and stuff in a more readable way on
On Oct 25, 2006, at 5:32 PM, Dan Buettner wrote:
My understanding of what is happening here is this:
The 'rows' column of EXPLAIN output is an estimate of how many rows
MySQL thinks it will likely have to examine in a table to get your
answer. When there's an index, it will hopefully be able
In the last episode (Oct 27), David Hillman said:
On Oct 25, 2006, at 5:32 PM, Dan Buettner wrote:
My understanding of what is happening here is this:
The 'rows' column of EXPLAIN output is an estimate of how many rows
MySQL thinks it will likely have to examine in a table to get your
On Oct 27, 2006, at 11:50 AM, Dan Nelson wrote:
MySQL is just giving you as much information as it can without
actually
running the query. It knows how it will go about running the query
(so
type is known absolutely), but it doesn't know exactly what it
will get
(so rows is only a guess).
, mysql can't get an
accurate count without reading the entire table so it does a couple of
random index dives to estimate the size, which means each explain is
likely to see a different number. If it's a MyISAM table, it might be
a bug. Try duplicating it on 4.1.21 (or preferably 5.0.26
All;
Am I crazy, or doesn't this have to be an optimizer/explain bug?
SQL interspersed with comments follow...
mysql CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE `table_a` ( `s_id` int(11) NOT NULL
default '0', `r_id` int(11) NOT NULL default '0', `d_id` int
(11) NOT NULL default '0', `status
/25/06, David Hillman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All;
Am I crazy, or doesn't this have to be an optimizer/explain bug?
SQL interspersed with comments follow...
mysql CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE `table_a` ( `s_id` int(11) NOT
NULL
default '0', `r_id` int(11) NOT NULL default '0
List,
I have been mulling over this for a few days reading docs and going back and
forth with people on this, so I figured I would come here before writing up a
bug report.
First of all, I have tested this on 4.1.18, 5.0.16, and 5.0.22 within Solaris
9 and Mandrake Linux LE 2005
and
forth with people on this, so I figured I would come here before writing up a
bug report.
First of all, I have tested this on 4.1.18, 5.0.16, and 5.0.22 within Solaris
9 and Mandrake Linux LE 2005 environments.
For the sake of ease, I will just set up a small test table to assist me
I have been mulling over this for a few days reading docs and going back
and
forth with people on this, so I figured I would come here before writing
up a
bug report.
First of all, I have tested this on 4.1.18, 5.0.16, and 5.0.22 within
Solaris
9 and Mandrake Linux LE 2005 environments
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2006 11:59:27 PM
Subject: Re: FreeBSD 6.1 + Libthr + MySQL 5.0.24a max connection issue or bug?
Have a look at kern.threads.max_threads_per_proc: 1500
and kern.threads.max_groups_per_proc: 1500
You are probably hitting one of these sysctl's. Here is a link
connection issue or
bug?
Hello folks,
I hope Greg is reading this list
I use MySQL 5.0.24a from the FreeBSD ports, with libthr threading.
I have a huge app makes alot of connections to MySQL server.
The max I could reach is 1500 threads, even I made the max connection
in my.cf 5k and I used
Hello folks,
I hope Greg is reading this list
I use MySQL 5.0.24a from the FreeBSD ports, with libthr threading.
I have a huge app makes alot of connections to MySQL server.
The max I could reach is 1500 threads, even I made the max connection in my.cf
5k and I used
Hello folks,
I hope Greg is reading this list
I use MySQL 5.0.24a from the FreeBSD ports, with libthr threading.
I have a huge app makes alot of connections to MySQL server.
The max I could reach is 1500 threads, even I made the max connection in my.cf
5k and I used
I just filed bug #22317 about this. The following script fails to
return a row under 4.1.21 (on x86_64, anyway), but works correctly on
4.1.20 (and .18):
drop table if exists test1;
create table test1
(
datetimeval datetime,
dateval1 date
|
| 97 |1 | 1.0 | 1.000 |
| 143 |1 | 1.0 | 1.000 |
The order has changed from desc to asc!
Looks like a bug for me or am I blind? ;-)
select version();
++
| version() |
++
| 4.1.8-standard
|
+-+--+---+---+
| 262 |9 | 9.0 | 1.000 |
| 161 |7 | 7.0 | 1.000 |
| 317 |2 | 2.0 | 1.000 |
| 97 |1 | 1.0 | 1.000 |
| 143 |1 | 1.0 | 1.000 |
The order has changed from desc to asc!
Looks like a bug for me or am I blind
| 1.000 |
| 161 |7 | 7.0 | 1.000 |
| 317 |2 | 2.0 | 1.000 |
| 97 |1 | 1.0 | 1.000 |
| 143 |1 | 1.0 | 1.000 |
The order has changed from desc to asc!
Looks like a bug for me or am I blind? ;-)
select version
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 15:20, you wrote:
the direction (desc/asc) order qualifier is per-sortfield and
defaults to asc, so to get what you're after you'd want:
order by avg_score desc, sum_score desc
or
order by avg_score desc, sum_score
if you're after 'asc' on sum_score.
Hello list,
I've found this strange select bug in retrieving rows from a table. I
can best illustrate this with an output of two queries:
mysql select id,jn from paper_2001 limit 10;
+--+---+
| id | jn|
+--+---+
| 19360350 | 6165 |
| 19360351 | 6165
Renald Buter wrote:
Odd, eh? But what's worse, the JOIN between this column and other
columns *also* uses this truncated values and the result is bogus.
I wouldn't say odd, as you didn't specified any order I wouldn't rely on
the order of the output. Try ordering things for what you want and
On 11:34 Thu 31 Aug , Renato Golin wrote:
Renald Buter wrote:
Odd, eh? But what's worse, the JOIN between this column and other
columns *also* uses this truncated values and the result is bogus.
I wouldn't say odd, as you didn't specified any order I wouldn't rely on
the order of the
On Thursday 31 August 2006 12:21, Renald Buter wrote:
The problem is that a simple 1-table query shows different answers
depending on whether you select 1 or 2 columns.
Relational databases are founded on mathematical set theory. Unless you
specify an ORDER BY stanza in your query, the
On 12:27 Thu 31 Aug , Duncan Hill wrote:
On Thursday 31 August 2006 12:21, Renald Buter wrote:
The problem is that a simple 1-table query shows different answers
depending on whether you select 1 or 2 columns.
*blush*
Of course. I see. How stupid.
Thanks and sorry to have bothered
In the last episode (Aug 31), Renald Buter said:
On 12:27 Thu 31 Aug , Duncan Hill wrote:
On Thursday 31 August 2006 12:21, Renald Buter wrote:
The problem is that a simple 1-table query shows different
answers depending on whether you select 1 or 2 columns.
*blush*
Of course. I
Good day,
After a whole day of researching I finally found an answer for Ms Access not
displaying the columns of more than one table in a MySQL 5 view...
The bugfix was posted in a mysql forum here:
http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?65,52721,100434#msg-100434
which contains a link to a download
I posted this as a comment on the page too, but Im curious as to why the
top solution is off by a day or so... Is this a bug or a rounding issue or
what? Is there a way to fix the top one to work the way I expect/want it
to work? I suspect it's because (as Jack Palance said in 'City Slickers
Daevid Vincent wrote:
I posted this as a comment on the page too, but I’m curious as to why the
top solution is off by a day or so... Is this a bug or a rounding issue or
what? Is there a way to fix the top one to work the way I expect/want it
to work? I suspect it's because (as Jack Palance
I am not aware of any such bug related to the LOCK TABLES privilege. Like you
I could not find a mention in our bugs database, for any version.
It is easy to demonstrate that this is not the case. If permissions are
properly set up, LOCK TABLES can be restricted to a database just like every
I'm using MySQL as the db for Drupal (PHP based CMS), on shared hosting. There
are repeated errors because the db user does not have permission for LOCK
TABLES, which Drupal uses.
The ISP says that they don't grant this permission because ...
MySQL has a bug which allows users with GrantTables
I am not aware of any such bug related to the LOCK TABLES privilege.
Like you I could not find a mention in our bugs database, for any version.
It is easy to demonstrate that this is not the case. If permissions are
properly set up, LOCK TABLES can be restricted to a database just like
every
[I searched the bug database...please let me know if I missed an already filed
or fixed bug.]
I am trying to dump a database from MySQL 4.0.24 using the client tools from
5.0. Debian server, Ubutnu 6.06 client.
I use this command line (watch for wrap):
mysqldump -u jkugler -p -h
dbserver
://www.scibit.com
-Original Message-
From: James Harvard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: SciBit MySQL Team [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: mysql@lists.mysql.com mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: [Spam-Junk]Re: MySQL 5.0.22 and show columns bug?
Sent: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:50:33 GMT
Received: Thu, 06 Jul 2006
OK, fair enough. In that case I would think that filing a report on
bugs.mysql.com would be your best way forward.
At 8:32 am + 7/7/06, SciBit MySQL Team wrote:
While you are not wrong, James, is the length member suppose to denote the
maximum length of data contained in result's specified
, if even.
This is not only a bug, but extremely wasteful, as most client apps will
therefore provide to allocate megs of ram for the potential data in this column
to display even the simpliest of tables' column listing. Not only that, but
many MySQL client apps will predetermine the correct manner
Although I know nothing about C I imagine this is because the 'type' column can
contain all the possible values from an ENUM or SET field.
James Harvard
At 10:30 am + 6/7/06, SciBit MySQL Team wrote:
Since a couple of recent stable versions back (and more recently, MySQL
5.0.22), MySQL has
this
environment.
I tried installing version 4.1.20 and linking my program with the new library
but the result is the same.
Is that a bug of windows version? Can anyone help?
Thanks in advanced
Javier Arias
On Monday 26 June 2006 01:04 am, Arias Gonzalez, Javier wrote:
memset(bind, 0, sizeof(bind));
This is probably your issue right here. You've already got bind[3] with
storage allocation for 3 MYSQL_BIND's. Now you're filling bind[0] with 0's,
effectively erasing the allocated MYSQL_BIND in
(42S02):
Table 'test.tablename' doesn't exist.
Does anyone know why my code generated an error? Is this a bug?
Thanks,
Tom
(42S02):
Table 'test.tablename' doesn't exist.
Does anyone know why my code generated an error? Is this a bug?
Thanks,
Tom
procedure sp3(in tablename varchar(10))
begin
select count(*) from tablename;
end$
When the procedure is called, I got the following error: ERROR 1146
(42S02): Table 'test.tablename' doesn't exist.
Does anyone know why my code generated an error? Is this a bug?
Thanks,
Tom
Hi,
we've had a strange problem with mysql for quite some time which could
not be solved so far.
The problem is with servers with a lot of databases (10.000+)
If one connects to mysql and issues a show database this will take ages
and eat up 100% cpu.
It does not matter if you connect as
on
agentrelationships.agentidchild = a2.agentid
Is there some known bug about combining theta and ansi style joins in
the same query? As I say, this works on a 4.1 server, and it will be
troublesome to convert all of the old queries in order to upgrade.
Thank you.
Regards,
Rich Duzenbury
--
MySQL General
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 11:42 -0500, Duzenbury, Rich wrote:
Is there some known bug about combining theta and ansi style joins in
the same query? As I say, this works on a 4.1 server, and it will be
troublesome to convert all of the old queries in order to upgrade.
In MySQL 5.0.12 they changed
hi,
i am running a join query between the german_english table and the
user_todo_german_english tables, to figure out which words a user is
studying.
the key i am using is a combination of wordid + pos + posn (that is part
of speech == pos)
however, i am not able to correctly do the join because
Hi,
mysql select * from user_todo_german_english where wordid = '86851' and
posn = '1' and pos = 'm' AND mb_id='curious';
+-++--+--+-+
| mb_id | wordid | posn | pos | date_col|
+-++--+--+-+
2006-04-22 (토), 08:43 +0900, kmh496 쓰시길:
hi,
i am running a join query between the german_english table and the
user_todo_german_english tables, to figure out which words a user is
studying.
the key i am using is a combination of wordid + pos + posn (that is part
of speech == pos)
however,
2006-04-22 (토), 00:49 +0100, Philippe Poelvoorde 쓰시길:
Hi,
mysql select * from user_todo_german_english where wordid = '86851' and
posn = '1' and pos = 'm' AND mb_id='curious';
+-++--+--+-+
| mb_id | wordid | posn | pos | date_col
kmh496 wrote:
hi,
i am running a join query between the german_english table and the
user_todo_german_english tables, to figure out which words a user is
studying.
the key i am using is a combination of wordid + pos + posn (that is part
of speech == pos)
however, i am not able to correctly do
://lists.mysql.com/commits/2515
It seems my problems stemmed from the above bug. If you build mysql yourself
without the ./configure option --without-readline, which is what i had been
doing, your version will fail to copy stuff from .mysql_history.TMP to
.mysql_history after a session, in effect, leaving
Dear Mr. Heikki and Team,
Currently we hit by this bug
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=15868
It got worse on MySQL5 rather than MySQL4, since i failed to downgrade
MySQL. Please give me idea to minimize the impact
My client is very dissapointed with this issue
Thank you very much
--
MySQL
Ady Wicaksono wrote:
Dear Mr. Heikki and Team,
Currently we hit by this bug
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=15868
It got worse on MySQL5 rather than MySQL4, since i failed to downgrade
MySQL. Please give me idea to minimize the impact
My client is very dissapointed with this issue
Thank
Ady,
I replied to the bug report.
Best regards,
Heikki
Oracle Corp./Innobase Oy
InnoDB - transactions, row level locking, and foreign keys for MySQL
InnoDB Hot Backup - a hot backup tool for InnoDB which also backs up MyISAM
tables
http://www.innodb.com/order.php
- Original Message
Thanks
I have sent you the log .err
Ady,
I replied to the bug report.
Best regards,
Heikki
Oracle Corp./Innobase Oy
InnoDB - transactions, row level locking, and foreign keys for MySQL
InnoDB Hot Backup - a hot backup tool for InnoDB which also backs up
MyISAM
tables
http
script is creating concurrent
connection to MySQL and doing insert. And boom..in a few
minute/seconds your MySQL
will be hang. It's terrible for me.
For MySQL4 yes, there's bug for multiple thread doing concurrent insert, but
Ady Wicaksono wrote:
Dear Mr. Heikki and Team,
Currently we hit
a union select * from a;
+--+
| id |
+--+
|1 |
|2 |
|3 |
+--+
Where are my leading zeroes? :(
Is this a known bug?
PS. On 4.1.* all works as expected.
--
Best regards,
Juri mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives
|
++
select * from a union select * from a;
+--+
| id |
+--+
|1 |
|2 |
|3 |
+--+
Where are my leading zeroes? :(
Is this a known bug?
PS. On 4.1.* all works as expected.
--
Best regards,
Juri mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi Gleb,
i finally found out a method to be entirely independent from any
character-set as well as collation-sequence problem, when forming a
UNION, where you occasionnally have to insert place-holders in one of
the SELECT statements:
as (text, varchar, char) placeholders use NULL instead of
Hi Gleb,
localhost.(none) show session variables like %version%;
+-+--+
| Variable_name | Value|
+-+--+
|
Hello.
Some times the cause of these problems is that some fields
have different character sets or it is a bug. I suggest you
the following steps: check if the problem still exists in 4.1.16.
Then provide the create statements of your tables to the list
(they include the character set information
in the
error 1267.
if i give those left off fields a _latin1 converter, everything works
fine. to find out, however, if the _latin1 converter is necessary, is
not easy.
is there a better solution to solve this problem? straight away: is this
a bug?
5. following examples:
is accepted:
(SELECT name
Hi there,
With the help of the people at CoreLab, we found out this problem:
After long testing we detected source of the problem. It's
STRICT_TRANS_TABLES
flag in sql-mode my.ini variable.
This variable affects only CREATE TABLE and CREATE PROCEDURE statements.
Even if you simplify script
Privet!
This seems as a bug, especially because with InnoDB tables bulk
insert works fine. You may add your comments at:
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=16021
Juri Shimon wrote:
Hello mysql,
When trigger on table uses select from same table, then bulk insert
),(1,4,10.00),(1,5,10.00);
- all OK.
Is this a bug?
--
Best regards,
Juri mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have 2 almost identical SQL statements {copied except 1 is a LEFT join and
the other is an INNER join}.
The INNER join gives me values for all of the fields. The LEFT join gives me
NULL's for all of the prec_... {the LEFT join table} fields.
If the INNER JOIN gives me values and not an empty
and 3765. But bug 1591 is still
listed as To be fixed later. Is that correct? If it is is there a
different bug against how MySQL 4 handled OUTER JOINS which was fixed
in MySQL 5 that I can reference in my justification letter?
Thanks,
Josh Trutwin
FWIW - here is an off-list conversation
)
mysql
Is there a bug that MySQL says Query OK, 2 rows affected (0.00 sec)
although only a single row was modified (as it should)?
I am using the version 5.0.15-nt.
Thanks.
Teddy
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http
Hello.
In my opinion, it is not a bug. REPLACE has returned the sum
of affected rows - one was deleted, and one was inserted. See:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/replace.html
Octavian Rasnita wrote:
Hi,
I have tried:
mysql create table z(id int unsigned not null
From: Gleb Paharenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello.
In my opinion, it is not a bug. REPLACE has returned the sum
of affected rows - one was deleted, and one was inserted. See:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/replace.html
Thank you. I have seen that's the true.
Is there any MySQL
Octavian Rasnita wrote:
From: Gleb Paharenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello.
In my opinion, it is not a bug. REPLACE has returned the sum
of affected rows - one was deleted, and one was inserted. See:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/replace.html
Thank you. I have seen that's the true
Hello.
In my opinion it is a bug. You may add your comments at:
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=15137
If this is a bug, I'll be happy to file a report... but I'd really like a
solution that will let me use the function.
I've noticed that you may create a temporary tables from views
)
DETERMINISTIC
RETURN IF (ma 9 AND stdv 0 AND (cnt = ma + (2 * stdv)) OR cnt = ma -
(2 * stdv),
IF (cnt = ma + (2 * stdv), 1, -1),
0);
If this is a bug, I'll be happy to file a report... but I'd really like a
solution that will let me use the function.
I hit a problem using functions in stored procedures
' and
pdomeupau.idmov = m.ID
group by m.dat
tehe Server says
Unknowmn column PEDCERT.id' in 'on clause'
This is a bug ?
MySQl 5.0.15 on Linux box using innodb tables.
--
-
++ Dyego Souza Dantas Leal
= '02'
where m.dat = '2005/01/01' and m.dat =
'2005/12/31' and pdomeupau.idmov = m.ID
group by m.dat
tehe Server says
Unknowmn column PEDCERT.id' in 'on clause'
This is a bug ?
MySQl 5.0.15 on Linux box using innodb tables.
This is due to changes made to join processing in 5.0.12
= asddb.PEDCERT.id) and
(v0.tipato = 'CC') and v0.codcta = '02'
where m.dat = '2005/01/01' and m.dat = '2005/12/31' and
pdomeupau.idmov = m.ID
group by m.dat
tehe Server says
Unknowmn column PEDCERT.id' in 'on clause'
This is a bug ?
MySQl 5.0.15 on Linux box using innodb tables
Hi!
LMS wrote:
Jeff Smelser escribió:
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 04:24 pm, LMS wrote:
Hi,
I have this structure:
---
CREATE TABLE tabla (
id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
nombre varchar(100) NOT NULL default '',
because your
value by '', Why?, this is a bug?.
Thanks for any answer...
Marcelo Sosa
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 04:24 pm, LMS wrote:
Hi,
I have this structure:
---
CREATE TABLE tabla (
id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
nombre varchar(100) NOT NULL default '',
because your defaulting it to ''.. so null = '' on
Jeff Smelser escribió:
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 04:24 pm, LMS wrote:
Hi,
I have this structure:
---
CREATE TABLE tabla (
id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
nombre varchar(100) NOT NULL default '',
because your defaulting it to
` (a INT DEFAULT 0)
I have duplicated this exact issue on several different setups, one
running 4.0.24 on both the slave and master. Is this by design, is it a
bug, or?
The manual states
(http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/create-table.html):
In MySQL 5.0, the table name can be specified
on several different setups, one
running 4.0.24 on both the slave and master. Is this by design, is it a
bug, or?
The manual states
(http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/create-table.html):
In MySQL 5.0, the table name can be specified as db_name.tbl_name to
create the table in a specific
created and
the query entered into the binlog, however the slave ignores it silently:
CREATE TABLE `db`.`table` (a INT DEFAULT 0)
I have duplicated this exact issue on several different setups, one
running 4.0.24 on both the slave and master. Is this by design, is it a
bug
issue on several different setups, one
running 4.0.24 on both the slave and master. Is this by design, is it a
bug, or?
The manual states
(http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/create-table.html):
In MySQL 5.0, the table name can be specified as db_name.tbl_name to
create the table in a specific
.a' in
'on clause' error, while statement (2) will likely function correctly
at some
point in the future.
This bug report is in reference to statements like statement (2), and
no bug
reports that use a statement like statement (1) are duplicates of this
bug.
The behaviour of (1) above
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Due to the complexity of my query I don't know how to get this down to a
simple test case to demonstrate the error.
This works under mysql 4.1.8 btw, so it is failing due to a change
introduced recently. It also worked under mysql 5.0.9, but I
James Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/12/2005 09:57:51 AM:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Due to the complexity of my query I don't know how to get this down to a
simple test case to demonstrate the error.
This works under mysql 4.1.8 btw, so it is failing due to a
James,
You can reproduce that error by writing ...
SELECT ...
FROM a, b INNER JOIN c ON a.x=c.y
The error goes away if you instead write ...
SELECT ...
FROM b, a INNER JOIN c ON A.x=c.y
so you might try swapping
FROM items i
, nams.netids n
PB
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it. Thank you.
Would this be a bug, or just something that should be documented?
- --
Love is mutual self-giving that ends in self-recovery. Fulton Sheen
James Black[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http
swapping
FROM items i
, nams.netids n
Tried that,now I get:
Unknown column 'n.badge'in 'on clause'
So, whichever order I put them in, I get one of two errors.
It appears that this bug will continue to break for me until it is
fixed in the next version, hopefully.
- --
Love is mutual
...
SELECT ...
FROM b, a INNER JOIN c ON A.x=c.y
so you might try swapping
FROM items i
, nams.netids n
Tried that,now I get:
Unknown column 'n.badge'in 'on clause'
So, whichever order I put them in, I get one of two errors.
It appears that this bug
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SELECT...
FROM items i
INNER JOIN nams.netids n
INNER JOIN ...
...
Does the problem remain? If it goes away, this would be useful information
to include in your bug report.
Thank you for the suggestion, but it led
rectly
at some
point in the future.
"This bug report is in reference to statements like statement (2), and
no bug
reports that use a statement like statement (1) are duplicates of this
bug."
The behaviour of (1) above is also verified
(http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=13551), and that page
Scott Klarenbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm using Mysql 5.0.7 and I've noticed the following very strange
functionality, perhaps someone can shed some light on it for me.
Try using the EXPLAIN statement to get some insight into what MySQL
is thinking.
Scott.
--
MySQL General Mailing
Hello.
Support guys verified this bug. Thank you. See:
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=13815
Juri Shimon wrote:
Hello All!
left(),right(),mid(),etc functions
+
with fixed point return value for function (or out parameter for sp)
---
result has been
Hello.
Thank you for your bug report. See:
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=13521
This issue has been committed to our source repository of that product
and will be incorporated into the next release.
If necessary, you can access the source repository and build the latest
available
I'm using Mysql 5.0.7 and I've noticed the following very strange
functionality, perhaps someone can shed some light on it for me.
2 Tables (Request and Inventory)
Request
id (int),
partNumber varchar(60)
Inventory
id(int),
MPN varchar(60),
MPNClean varchar(60)
I have about 1500
201 - 300 of 2315 matches
Mail list logo
