On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 16:08, Chris Boget wrote:
> I have 2 tables (looks best in fixed width font):
>
> test_items
> +---+--+
> | name | rec_num |
> +---+--+
> | Book | 1|
> | Game | 2|
> +---+--+
>
> test_attributes
> +---+-
> GROUP_CONCAT() is in 4.1. :-)
Oh, so close yet so far. We're running 4.0.14 and my company has
no plans on upgrading in the near future. *sigh*
Thanks for the info, however!!
Chris
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://list
Hi,
GROUP_CONCAT() is in 4.1. :-)
Matt
- Original Message -
From: "m.pheasant"
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:26 PM
Subject: RE: Is this possible?
> You would need an aggregate concat() function I think its in 5.0
> m
>
> -Original Message-
>
You would need an aggregate concat() function I think its in 5.0
m
-Original Message-
From: Chris Boget [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 7:08 AM
To: MySQL
Subject: Is this possible?
I have 2 tables (looks best in fixed width font):
test_items
+---+--+
thanx for reply but not a good idea. Though i did it through PHP script
Nitin
- Original Message -
From: "Mechain Marc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Nitin Mehta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 1:38 PM
Subject:
To drop all tables, yes do a drop database.
To drop all with something like a exclude, no.
What you can do is an export of the tables you don't want to drop, then do a drop
database + create database + import
Marc.
-Message d'origine-
De : Nitin Mehta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé :
On Fri 2003-01-24 at 07:59:16 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> sub-selects are not yet (to the best of my knowledge) supported in MySQL.
To be a bit more precise: They are not supported in any stable release
of MySQL. They are going to be supported in Version 4.1, which is
still declared alpha. M
gt;
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: Is this possible?
> I believe a sub-select with the DISTINCT command would do it.
> You would have to look up the syntax.
>
> Also, it seems that some people seem to be having a problem with
> sub-selects but
> I don
I believe a sub-select with the DISTINCT command would do it.
You would have to look up the syntax.
Also, it seems that some people seem to be having a problem with
sub-selects but
I don't have any direct experience to convey.
At 01:12 PM 1/23/03 -0600, Doug Coning wrote:
Is this possible in My
A guess...
select t1.cat1 as result from t1
union
select t2.cat2 as result from t1
union
select t3.cat3 as result from t1
union
select t4.cat4 as result from t1
group by result
order by result
*
* Cal Evans
* Techno-Mage
* http://www.calevans.com
*
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Coning"
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Doug Coning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Is this possible?
> Your message cannot be posted because it appears to be either spam or
> simply off topic to our filt
Steen
- Original Message -
From: "Rick Emery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Steen Rabol'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 9:35 PM
Subject: RE: Is this possible in one SQL statement
> Please restate the foll
quot;Rick Emery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Steen Rabol'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 9:35 PM
Subject: RE: Is this possible in one SQL statement
> Please restate the following more completely. I think some ty
Hard to understand your example: b_field2 is not part of your table b table
structure; your example table b rows are missing either their ID field or the
non-existent b_field2 and the explanation as to why table A rows A1 and A3 would
qualify is not clear when the values 1 and 3 are not relate
Please restate the following more completely. I think some typos got in
there. If not, then we need more detail of what you really want.
the condition is then value 1 and 3 and the record I want is A1 and A3 due
to the fact that a recorc exists in table B with a value of on and one
record with
* Stig Nørgaard Jepsen
> > Do you need to read _all_ textkeys for each page? How many different
> > textkeys do you have in the table?
>
> No I don't have to read all the textkeys at once. They are
> usually selected via a join from another table. And sometimes I
> will read a set of rows via a se
> > I would emagine that only one 'left join' takes less processing power?
>
> Yes, but I don't think there is very much extra processing time involved
> using one more join in most cases, as long as the join is indexed and the
> index blocks involved are cached, or if the amount of data is reaso
* Stig Nørgaard Jepsen
> > select distinct
> > t1.textkey,
> > if(t2.textid,t2.languageid,t3.languageid) as languageid,
> > if(t2.textid,t2.textid,t3.textid) as textid,
> > if(t2.textid,t2.textvalue,t3.textvalue) as textvalue
> > from texts t1
> > left join texts t2 on
> > t2.textkey=t1.
> > Ok, I will, but I CC it to the mailinglist, maybe others have interest
> > and/or comments. Besides, I think I may have found a bug...
>
> Yes, of course my fault not to post directly to the list :)
>
> I have another problem with this query.
> If the textvalue field is the text type, then i
> select distinct
> t1.textkey,
> if(t2.textid,t2.languageid,t3.languageid) as languageid,
> if(t2.textid,t2.textid,t3.textid) as textid,
> if(t2.textid,t2.textvalue,t3.textvalue) as textvalue
> from texts t1
> left join texts t2 on
> t2.textkey=t1.textkey and
> t2.languageid='da'
> le
> Ok, I will, but I CC it to the mailinglist, maybe others have interest
> and/or comments. Besides, I think I may have found a bug...
Yes, of course my fault not to post directly to the list :)
I have another problem with this query.
If the textvalue field is the text type, then i get this erro
* Stig Nørgaard Jepsen
> It's a miracle! Thank you so much. I didn't think it was possible.
> It seems to work alright.
:)
The LEFT JOIN and IF() combination is quite powerfull.
> But i really don't understand what happens.
> I would be very glad if you could explain for me what's the
> princip
Stig Nørgaard Jepsen wrote:
> > You may try this and see if it works (didn't test it, just jotted it down
> > here):
> >
> > select t1.textid, t1.textid, t1.textvalue
> I just don't understand why you did this?
> Why select t1.textid twice?
Ugh... That was a mistake -- I actually meant t1.textid
* Stig Nørgaard Jepsen
> Is it possible to make a query in MySQL, which could return row
> 1,3 and 4 based on these conditions?
select distinct
t1.textkey,
if(t2.textid,t2.languageid,t3.languageid) as languageid,
if(t2.textid,t2.textid,t3.textid) as textid,
if(t2.textid,t2.textvalue,t3.te
> You may try this and see if it works (didn't test it, just jotted it down
> here):
>
> select t1.textid, t1.textid, t1.textvalue
I just don't understand why you did this?
Why select t1.textid twice?
> from texts as t1, texts as t2
Again I don't understand this...
Wouldn't t1 and t2 be the s
You may try this and see if it works (didn't test it, just jotted it down
here):
select t1.textid, t1.textid, t1.textvalue
from texts as t1, texts as t2
where
(t1.languageid='$Primlanguage' and t1.textid=t2.textid) or
(t1.textid=t2.textid and t2.languageid='$Seclanguage' and
t2.lan
mysqldump creates a text file with such structure.
- Original Message -
From: Joel Holtzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 1:47 AM
Subject: Is this possible
> Hello, I am starting to get some success from Load data. Ok, now with
that,
> here
27 matches
Mail list logo
