|
+--+-+-+
|1 | 4 | 0 |
|2 | 0 | 6 |
+--+-----+---------+
So could it be a bug in 4.0.18?
- seb
---
David Griffiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One of our developers came to me yesterday with strange results from
a query. I'
2 | 0 | 6 |
+--+-+-+
So could it be a bug in 4.0.18?
- seb
---
David Griffiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One of our developers came to me yesterday with strange results from a
query. I've created a simple version of the example. I've pasted t
4.0.18?
- seb
---
David Griffiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>One of our developers came to me yesterday with strange results from a
>query. I've created a simple version of the example. I've pasted the
>table definitions at the bottom if someone really needs to see
Sorry - removed some data to make it clearer.
insert into master (col1) values (1), (2);
is correct.
David
Michael Stassen wrote:
Before I think about this, which is it?
insert into master (col1) values (1), (2);
or
insert into master (col1) values (1), (2), (3);
Michael
--
MySQL General Mailing
Before I think about this, which is it?
insert into master (col1) values (1), (2);
or
insert into master (col1) values (1), (2), (3);
Michael
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
One of our developers came to me yesterday with strange results from a
query. I've created a simple version of the example. I've pasted the
table definitions at the bottom if someone really needs to see them.
This is on mysql 4.0.18.
insert into master (col1) values (1), (2);
inser
