perhaps assist with the below... I'm not sure at all why my
> index aren't being used for the ORDER BY. Currently some 443K records in
> the table, but this will grow to a good few million. I simply cannot,
> afford a filesort.
>
>
> mysql> SELE
Hi,
Can someone perhaps assist with the below... I'm not sure at all why my
index aren't being used for the ORDER BY. Currently some 443K records in
the table, but this will grow to a good few million. I simply cannot,
afford a filesort.
mysql> SELECT COUNT(*)
EXPLAIN SELECT e.id FROM masik m STRAIGHT_JOIN egyik e ON e.id=
> m.id WHERE e.duma= 'aaa' ORDER BY m.szam ASC;
> ++-+---++---+--+-+-+--+-+
> | id | select_type | table | type | possible_
Hi,
Would you try STRAIGHT_JOIN?
mysql56> ALTER TABLE masik DROP KEY idx_test, ADD KEY idx_test(szam, id);
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.08 sec)
Records: 0 Duplicates: 0 Warnings: 0
mysql56> EXPLAIN SELECT e.id FROM masik m STRAIGHT_JOIN egyik e ON e.id=
m.id WHERE e.duma= 'aa
Hi!
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Antonio Fernández Pérez
wrote:
> Hi Lay,
>
> If I don't mistake, you can't eliminate "Using temporary" and "Using
> filesort" because you are using an "order by". Try the explain again
> removing ord
Hi Lay,
If I don't mistake, you can't eliminate "Using temporary" and "Using
filesort" because you are using an "order by". Try the explain again
removing order by and check the output.
When you use an order by, MySQL needs to use filesort and spend
Hi!
I have two tables:
CREATE TABLE `egyik` (
`id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
`duma` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
KEY `e_idx` (`duma`,`id`)
) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=3 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
INSERT INTO `egyik` VALUES (1,'aaa'),(2,'bbb');
CREATE TABLE `m
gt; IN (13528, 14906, 38845)) ORDER BY `date` DESC LIMIT 1;" on 5.1.72 and on
> 5.6.15 I get back different data. The date for all of the data are
> exactly the same to the second.
>
> However, if I run "SELECT `table`.* FROM `table` WHERE (credential_id IN
> (13528, 14906, 38
T `table_foo`.* FROM `table_foo` WHERE (credential_id IN (13528, 14906,
38845)) ORDER BY `date` DESC LIMIT 1;
Thanks!
> From: myfriendvi...@gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 10:27:28 -0800
> Subject: RE: MySQL Descending ORDER issue
> To: russ_lav...@hotmail.com; mysql@lists.mysql.com
Hi Russ,
Please share with us the exact details of the table data as well as the
o/p.
Regards,
ViXiD
Vikas Shukla
Mail Sent from my Windows Phone From: Russ Lavoie
Sent: 27-12-2013 23:32
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: MySQL Descending ORDER issue
Hello,
I am currently upgrading from mysql
Hello,
I am currently upgrading from mysql 5.1.72 -> mysql 5.6 and the migration and
upgrade is sound (In a QA ENV). Queries work etc. However, when I run a query
similar to "SELECT `table`.* FROM `table` WHERE (some_id IN (13528, 14906,
38845)) ORDER BY `date` DESC LIMIT 1;" on
Hello,
I want to place an order in your store,and i will like to know if you
ship to Australia and my method of payment will be credit card.so please let me
know if you can assist me with the order ,And please do not forget to include
your web page in your replying back to my mail.I will
- Original Message -
> From: "Akshay Suryavanshi"
> I was referring to a condition when there is no index on the tables,
> not even primary keys.
If you have a lot of data in there, may I suggest you (temporarily) add a
unique index and benchmark both methods? As I said, limit n,m is th
l Message -
> > From: "Akshay Suryavanshi"
> >
> > I am not sure, but if its a MyISAM table, it should be ordered by the
> > records insertion order, and in case of InnoDB it should be ordered
> > by the clustered index, not necessarily it should be a def
- Original Message -
> From: "Akshay Suryavanshi"
>
> I am not sure, but if its a MyISAM table, it should be ordered by the
> records insertion order, and in case of InnoDB it should be ordered
> by the clustered index, not necessarily it should be a defined
I am not sure, but if its a MyISAM table, it should be ordered by the
records insertion order, and in case of InnoDB it should be ordered by the
clustered index, not necessarily it should be a defined one.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:58 PM, jiangwen jiang wrote:
> hi, all:
>
>
That's exactly what I thought when reading Michael's email, but tried
anyways, thanks for clarification :)
2012/10/16
> 2012/10/16 12:57 -0400, Michael Dykman
> your now() statement is getting executed for every row on the select. try
> ptting the phrase up front
> as in:
> set @ut= u
2012/10/16 12:57 -0400, Michael Dykman
your now() statement is getting executed for every row on the select. try
ptting the phrase up front
as in:
set @ut= unix_timestamp(now())
and then use that in your statement.
Quote:
Functions that return the current date or time each are
Interesting thought, but I get the same result.
# Query_time: 0.001769 Lock_time: 0.001236 Rows_sent: 0 Rows_examined: 0
use kannel;
SET timestamp=1350413592;
select * from send_sms FORCE INDEX (priority_time) where time<=@ut order by
priority limit 0,11;
the MySQL i'm using is 5.5
iority_time)
WHERE time <= UNIX_TIMESTAMP(NOW()) ORDER by priority LIMIT 0,50;
2012/10/16 Shawn Green
> On 10/15/2012 7:15 PM, spameden wrote:
>
>> T...
oxc_id, binfo,
meta_data, task_id, msgid FROM send_sms_test FORCE INDEX (priority_time)
WHERE time <= UNIX_TIMESTAMP(NOW()) ORDER by priority LIMIT 0,50;
2012/10/16 Shawn Green
> On 10/15/2012 7:15 PM, spameden wrote:
>
>> Thanks a lot for all your comments!
>>
>> I did
On 10/15/2012 7:15 PM, spameden wrote:
Thanks a lot for all your comments!
I did disable Query cache before testing with
set query_cache_type=OFF
for the current session.
I will report this to the MySQL bugs site later.
First. What are all of your logging settings?
SHOW GLOBAL VARIAB
ptimizer's choice.
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* spameden [mailto:spame...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, October 15, 2012 3:29 PM
>
> *To:* Rick James
> *Cc:* mysql@lists.mysql.com
> *Subject:* Re: mysql logs query with indexes used to the slow-log and not
> logging if
From: spameden [mailto:spame...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 3:29 PM
To: Rick James
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: mysql logs query with indexes used to the slow-log and not logging
if there is index in reverse order
Sorry, forgot to say:
mysql> show variables lik
y_len;
filesort
INDEX(priority, time) -- faster; smaller; seems to use both keys of the
index (key_len=12); avoids filesort (because INDEX(priority, ...) agrees with
ORDER BY priority).
The Optimizer has (at some level) two choices:
* Start with the WHERE
* Start with the ORDER BY
> | 143879 |
> +--+
> 1 row in set (0.03 sec)
>
> Without LIMIT:
> mysql> desc select * from send_sms_test FORCE INDEX (time_priority) where
> time<=UNIX_TIMESTAMP(NOW()) order by priority;
>
> ++-+---+---+
* from send_sms_test FORCE INDEX (time_priority) where
time<=UNIX_TIMESTAMP(NOW()) order by priority;
++-+---+---+---+---+-+--+---+-+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key
IGINT takes 8 bytes -- usually over-sized.
> -Original Message-
> From: spameden [mailto:spame...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 1:42 PM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: mysql logs query with indexes used to the slow-log and not
> logging if there is
st FORCE INDEX (time_priority) where
time<=UNIX_TIMESTAMP(NOW()) order by priority limit 0,13;*
++-+---+---+---+---+-+--+---+-+
| id | select_type | table | type | possible_keys | key
| ke
-gnu on x86_64 ((Percona Server
(GPL), 14.0, Revision 475))
If I check with EXPLAIN MySQL says it would use the index:
mysql> *desc select * from send_sms_test where time<=UNIX_TIMESTAMP(NOW())
order by priority limit 0,11;*
++-+---+---+---+
The parens are for making sure the parsing works correctly. Probably either
one works fine. Suggest you do
EXPLAIN EXTENDED ...;
SHOW WARNINGS;
I suspect that the output from each will be identical, and have more parens.
The main need for parens is to avoid associating the ORDER BY with
>>>> 2012/06/20 14:32 -0700, Rick James >>>>
(
SELECT ruid1, ruid2, overlap FROM l4_link WHERE ruid1=xxx
UNION
SELECT ruid1, ruid2, overlap FROM l4_link WHERE ruid2=xxx
) ORDER BY overlap DESC;
Make it UNION ALL or UNION DISTINCT depending on whether xxx can be in
Message-
> From: Wes James [mailto:compte...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:03 PM
> To: mysql general discussion
> Subject: sort order
>
> I have mysql 5.1.62-0ubuntu0.11.10.1 installed, but the sort order for
> utf8-unicod
In phpMyAdmin it says the database collation is utf8_unicode_ci and each of
the columns is utf8_unicode_ci except the ID primary key column.
If you create a simple table with ID and TITLE and put the data below (each
row in a record) and run 'select * from table order by title' what
I'll double check and get back.
Thanks,
-wes
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Carlos Proal wrote:
>
> Hi Wes, have you double checked you character set and collation ??
>
> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman//5.5/en/charset-charsets.html
>
> The collation is which deter
Hi Wes, have you double checked you character set and collation ??
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman//5.5/en/charset-charsets.html
The collation is which determines the sorting order.
Carlos Proal
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Wes James wrote:
> I have mysql 5.1.62-0ubuntu0.11.1
I have mysql 5.1.62-0ubuntu0.11.10.1 installed, but the sort order for
utf8-unicode doesn't seem to be right. It is sorting some text like this
(order by title):
!
! *`-=[];',./~@#$%^&()_+{}|:"<>?\
!"
![
!@
!a
!A
!t
!test
'Coal age'
[
\--\
10
SELECT name, city, state, phone, prods_done, cancels, miles FROM
(SELECT name, city, state, phone, prods_done, cancels, miles, ((prod_done -
cancels) * 100 / prod_done) reliability
FROM volunteer_search WHERE project_id = 5653) A
ORDER BY reliability DESC, miles ASC
Give it a try !!!
Rolando A
ct_id = 5653
ORDER BY miles ASC, cancels/(prods_done/cancels) ASC, prods_done DESC";
The results look something like this:
Jim Barnes Chicago, IL 773-555- 2 1 11.5
Kelley Smith Cicero, IL 708-444-2121 3 0 21.6
Kim Ayers Plainfield, IL 630-888-9898 22 1 25.1
I am trying to find a w
> -Original Message-
> From: Joeri De Backer [mailto:fons...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 1:16 AM
> To: mysql
> Subject: Re: Order by "in" clause
>
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Mark Goodge
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
&
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a query like this:
>
> select id, title from product where id in (1,3,5,8,10)
>
> What I want it to do is return the rows in the order specified in the "in"
> clause, so that this:
>
Hi,
I have a query like this:
select id, title from product where id in (1,3,5,8,10)
What I want it to do is return the rows in the order specified in the
"in" clause, so that this:
select * from product where id in (10,3,8,5,1)
will give me results in this order:
+--+-
Easy.
SELECT DATE_FORMAT(`Time`, '%h:%i%p') as `Time_Format`
FROM `reservation`
ORDER BY `Time`
> -Original Message-
> From: BMBasal [mailto:bmb37...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 3:50 PM
> To: 'Chris W'; 'MYSQL General List'
It is inherent in your naming.
As long as your alias "time" is the same as the column name "time", MySQL
will have no way to distinguish which one you refers to exactly in your
order-by clause, and chooses the alias in the select-clause as the one you
intended. You confused My
Order by reservation.time
JW
On Tuesday, September 28, 2010, Chris W <4rfv...@cox.net> wrote:
> I have the following query that is giving me problems.
>
> SELECT DATE_FORMAT(`Time`, '%h:%i%p') as `Time`
> FROM `reservation`
> ORDER BY `Time`
>
> Problem
I have the following query that is giving me problems.
SELECT DATE_FORMAT(`Time`, '%h:%i%p') as `Time`
FROM `reservation`
ORDER BY `Time`
Problem is it sorts wrong because of the date format function output
with am and pm. I guess I should have named things differently but I
wo
n Ave.
Farmington, CT 06032
860.674.8796 / FAX: 860.674.8341
E-mail: je...@gii.co.jp
Web site: www.the-infoshop.com
>-Original Message-
>From: Kristian Davies [mailto:kristian.dav...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 5:03 AM
>To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
>Subject:
> Isn't it so that it firstly order the rows by id (index'ed?) and then scan
> it to pick the rows which satisfy the where clause?
>
> It stops when the result reaches the limit, otherwise scans the whole (27,
> 000 rows scan).
>
> Then the response time with 2 ro
Hi,
> With the following query if I it returns 2 results it's fast .04s, if
> it has less results than the limit it takes 1minute.
>
> Query:
> select * from hub_dailies_sp where active='1' and date='2010-08-04'
> order by id desc LIMIT 2;
>
>
With the following query if I it returns 2 results it's fast .04s, if
it has less results than the limit it takes 1minute.
Query:
select * from hub_dailies_sp where active='1' and date='2010-08-04'
order by id desc LIMIT 2;
Show create table:
http://pastebin.org/447
> But I'd prefer not to see the extra sorting field.
You don't need to select a field in order to be able to order by it.
So
select chart_of_accounts.accountname as Account,
concat('$',format(coalesce(sum(sales_journal_entries.debit),0),2)) as
Debit,
concat(
On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 08:57 +1000, Jesper Wisborg Krogh wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 08:53:57 Keith Clark wrote:
> > But I'd prefer not to see the extra sorting field.
>
> You don't need to select a field in order to be able to order by it.
>
> So
>
> se
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 08:53:57 Keith Clark wrote:
> But I'd prefer not to see the extra sorting field.
You don't need to select a field in order to be able to order by it.
So
select chart_of_accounts.accountname as Account,
concat('$',format(coalesce(sum(sales_journal_e
---+
> | 1.00 |
> +---+
> 1 row in set (0.00 sec)
>
>
> Which in that case, it's better to just select balance without the dollar
> sign and order on that column.
+
| CAST(REPLACE('$1.00','$','') as decimal(8,2)) |
+---+
| 1.00 |
+---+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
Which in that case, it's better to just select balance without the dollar sign
and ord
Try
order by CAST(Balance as decimal(8,2)) asc;
Cast will work in the order by.
Glenn Vaughn
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Clark"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 3:52 PM
Subject: order by numeric value
I have the following statement:
select chart_of_accounts.a
t; > from sales_journal_entries
> > left join sales_journal
> > on sales_journal.journalID=sales_journal_entries.journalID
> > left join chart_of_accounts
> > on chart_of_accounts.accountID=sales_journal_entries.accountID
> > where sales_journal.date > '2008-12-31'
> > and s
ournal_entries.accountID
where sales_journal.date > '2008-12-31'
and sales_journal.date < '2010-01-01'
group by sales_journal_entries.accountID
order by Balance asc;
and I'd like the output to be sorted by the Balance according to the
numberic value, but it is sorting by the
ere sales_journal.date > '2008-12-31'
and sales_journal.date < '2010-01-01'
group by sales_journal_entries.accountID
order by Balance asc;
and I'd like the output to be sorted by the Balance according to the
numberic value, but it is sorting by the string resul
On 2/7/10 7:28 AM, "Anthony Urso" wrote:
> Does the order of tuples in a bulk insert impact later query
> performance? E.g. will sorting the rows before a bulk insert cause
> queries to perform better for indexed or non-indexed fields?
when i load a large body of data (usin
Does the order of tuples in a bulk insert impact later query
performance? E.g. will sorting the rows before a bulk insert cause
queries to perform better for indexed or non-indexed fields?
Thanks,
Anthony
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To
Hi
how to use "order by" with "with rollup", if it is not possible is there any
alternative,
in rollup how to name the null. is there chance to do so. please help me
with this..
.role_id=2556 order by item0_.id desc;
mysql version: 5.1.34
have you guys met this problem?
thanks,
-Oscar
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=arch...@jab.org
> From: Glyn Astill
>
> Doesn't look crazy to me, and it works in 5.0.32
>
> http://www.privatepaste.com/50RvhihKKm
>
> Perhaps time to patch that server ...
>
I've guessed at the table def there, obviously your def may be different and
that would surely affect the palanners choice. Perhaps
> From: Matt Neimeyer
>
> Generic code to draw a SELECT element on the screen
> sometimes it ends
> up like such...
>
> SELECT DISTINCT name AS myvalue,name AS mydisp FROM names
> WHERE
> name!="" ORDER BY myvalue
>
> On 4.1.22 this returns
>
>
I'm not sure what to search on to see if someone has reported this as
a bug or if I'm doing something wrong...
Generic code to draw a SELECT element on the screen sometimes it ends
up like such...
SELECT DISTINCT name AS myvalue,name AS mydisp FROM names WHERE
name!=""
sage-
From: Matt Neimeyer [mailto:m...@neimeyer.org]
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 3:53 PM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: ALTER TABLE order / optimization
Given table: CREATE TABLE testtab (d_col CHAR(4));
Question 1: It appears that there is no "harm" in just appending
directives
Given table: CREATE TABLE testtab (d_col CHAR(4));
Question 1: It appears that there is no "harm" in just appending
directives onto the alter table command even if the order doesn't make
sense. It appears the parser figures it out... For example...
ALTER TABLE testtab ADD COLU
head-row follewed by the group members with that head
(2)head rows are ordered alphabetically by name.
What the query looks like?
Thanks
I hope this is not a school assignment.
What I came up with was to create a new order column that I populated
with the name of the HEAD.
Then I can order by
ame is the current record, sometimes it's a "parent" record,
you need to conditional check which type of "record" it is and built
the sort value.
SELECT tablename.*,
IF(tablename.head_id=NULL,
CONCAT(tablename.name, tablename.member_id),
CONCAT(heads.name, table
|
+---+---+-+
which not groups correctly. Seems it's a hard query.
- Original Message -
From: "Darryle Steplight"
To: "Elim PDT"
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: Hard? query to with group order by group head's name
Hi Elim,
On 16 Jul 2009, at 15:26, Govinda wrote:
Meaning that on a shared hosting situation, without ssh, then I
cannot do that, right?
Not necessarily - you can run the client locally and connect to the
remote DB. It depends if your host allows remote access to mysql (they
might do on request).
On 16 Jul 2009, at 15:02, Govinda wrote:
I see such nice formated text output serving to illustrate people's
tables and I think it must be due to some code which is spitting
that out, rather than people typing so painstakingly. What is that
function/MySQL/code?
It's the default output f
I see such nice formated text output serving to illustrate people's
tables and I think it must be due to some code which is spitting
that out, rather than people typing so painstakingly. What is that
function/MySQL/code?
It's the default output format of the mysql command line client,
no
My table group_member looks like this:
+---+---+-+
| member_id | name | head_id |
+---+---+-+
| 1 | Elim |NULL |
| 2 | Ann | 1 |
| 3 | David |NULL |
| 4 | John | 3 |
| 5 | Jane | 3 |
+--
Hi Elim,
I didn't test it out but it sounds like you want to do this "
SELECT * FROM group_members GROUP BY head_id, member_id ORDER BY name
ASC ".
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Elim PDT wrote:
> My table group_member looks like this:
> +---+---+-+
My table group_member looks like this:
+---+---+-+
| member_id | name | head_id |
+---+---+-+
| 1 | Elim |NULL |
| 2 | Ann | 1 |
| 3 | David |NULL |
| 4 | John | 3 |
| 5 | Jane | 3 |
+---
I agree with Per, I use utf8 and it works fine for me, even with Chinese
characters
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
> PJ wrote:
>
> > Let me put it this way, I am not having the problem. The problem seems
> > to be withthe way that character encoding is set up on the internet
PJ wrote:
> Let me put it this way, I am not having the problem. The problem seems
> to be withthe way that character encoding is set up on the internet -
> as confused and inconsistent as most everything else.
> You can put whatever charset you want in the header, in the collations
> in your data
Isart Montane wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not having any problem on my local computer
>
> mysql> select text,text2 from table1 order by text2 desc;
> +--+---+
> | text | text2 |
> +--+---+
> | a   |    1 |
> | �   |    0 |
> +--
Hi,
I'm not having any problem on my local computer
mysql> select text,text2 from table1 order by text2 desc;
+--+---+
| text | text2 |
+--+---+
| a| 1 |
| �| 0 |
+--+---+
mysql>select text,text2 from table1 order by text2 desc;
+--+
Is there a way to order lists while ignoring the accents?
So far, I have found nothing simple; and I need to keep the accents for
output.
The language is French (and québécois) :-)
TIA
--
Hervé Kempf: "Pour sauver la planète, sortez du capita
Craig Dunn wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to migrate an application from 4.1 to 5.1, theres a bunch of
queries that seem to be failing and it looks like the order of INNER
JOIN's... for example...
SELECTetc
INNER JOIN tablex AS x ON y.foo = a.bar
INNER JOIN tablea AS a ON y.f
Hi,
I'm trying to migrate an application from 4.1 to 5.1, theres a bunch of
queries that seem to be failing and it looks like the order of INNER
JOIN's... for example...
SELECTetc
INNER JOIN tablex AS x ON y.foo = a.bar
INNER JOIN tablea AS a ON y.foo = b.bar
... works i
ELECT @sn:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sn, id, title FROM t GROUP BY id
ORDER BY id desc;
| sn | id | title |
+--+--+---+
|1 |5 | eee |
|2 |4 | ddd |
|3 |3 | ccc |
|4 |2 | bbb |
|5 |1 | aaa |
(b) [MySQL 5.0.51a]: DO @sn := 0; SELECT @sn:[EMAIL P
).
Thanks,
Nishi
CREATE TABLE t ( id TINYINT, title VARCHAR(10) );
INSERT INTO t (id, title) VALUES (1, 'aaa'), (2, 'bbb'), (3, 'ccc'), (4,
'ddd'), (5, 'eee');
(a) DO @sn := 0; SELECT @sn:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sn, id, title FROM t G
IL PROTECTED]>
To: Paul Nowosielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; mysql@lists.mysql.com
Sent: Monday, December 1, 2008 6:42:19 PM
Subject: RE: regular expressions matching only numeric characters in order
Hi
I am a bit of novice at Regexp, but I believe this will work for you
(\d+\d+\d+).*(\d+\
Dear All,
I'm trying to create a regular expression query to match phone numbers
in a database field.
My issue is this , the numbers have no set standard for input in the db.
So the number in the db could be in multiple formats.
EX:
333.333.
(333)333-
333-333-
33
So I am wa
;aaa'), (2, 'bbb'), (3, 'ccc'), (4,
'ddd'), (5, 'eee');
(a) DO @sn := 0; SELECT @sn:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sn, id, title FROM t GROUP BY id
ORDER BY id desc;
| sn | id | title |
+--+--+---+
|1 |5 | eee |
|2 |4 | ddd |
#x27;), (2, 'bbb'), (3, 'ccc'),
(4, 'ddd'), (5, 'eee');
(a) DO @sn := 0;
SELECT @sn:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sn, id, title FROM t GROUP BY id ORDER BY id desc;
| sn | id | title |
+--+--+---+
|1 |5 | eee |
|2 |4 | ddd |
|
Hi Nishi,
There was a bug in that version that affected the sort order when
combined with a group by statement
(http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=32202.) There are a couple of
workarounds but they are bad (e.g. removing primary key!)
I would strongly suggest you upgrade to 5.0.67 or
CREATE TABLE t ( id TINYINT, title VARCHAR(10) );
INSERT INTO t (id, title) VALUES (1, 'aaa'), (2, 'bbb'), (3, 'ccc'), (4,
'ddd'), (5, 'eee');
(a) DO @sn := 0;
SELECT @sn:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sn, id, title FROM t GROUP BY id ORDER BY id desc;
| sn
ogram
> > files(x86)\mysql\my.ini\""
> >
> > net start mysql
> >
> > Regards,
> > Armin.
> >
> >
> > 2008/10/6 Varuna Seneviratna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > I added a line to the [mysqld) group
> >
See the usage of the function named field.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Mr. Shawn H. Corey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 07:32 -0400, Gary Josack wrote:
> > Andrew Martin wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Is it permissible to order
Hi
Basically from the query below, it would only return one product like
RedLight. But I need to return a list of all products, ordered by a
SELECT ProductID,
ProductName,
AVG(ProductScore * Quantity) AS a
FROM Products
GROUP BY ProductID
ORDER BY a DESC
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Light
>>> 0.055
>>> %2008-11-11160 Green Light
>>> 0.065
>>> % 2008-11-12160 Green Light
>>> 0.115
>>> Is this possib
gt;> 0.055
>> %2008-11-11160 Green Light
>> 0.065
>> %2008-11-12160 Green Light
>> 0.115
>> Is this possible ?
>> On Fri, Oc
ECTED]>wrote:
>
>> SELECT ProductID,
>> ProductName,
>> AVG(ProductScore * Quantity) AS a
>> FROM Products
>> GROUP BY ProductID
>> ORDER BY a DESC
>>
>> 2008/10/24, Tompkins Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
>>> Following on
wrote:
> SELECT ProductID,
> ProductName,
> AVG(ProductScore * Quantity) AS a
> FROM Products
> GROUP BY ProductID
> ORDER BY a DESC
>
> 2008/10/24, Tompkins Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Following on from my email below I now need help with the following
SELECT ProductID,
ProductName,
AVG(ProductScore * Quantity) AS a
FROM Products
GROUP BY ProductID
ORDER BY a DESC
2008/10/24, Tompkins Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Following on from my email below I now need help with the following
> problem. Here is a list of my sampl
1 - 100 of 1508 matches
Mail list logo
