) FROM t1 t)
UNION
(SELECT t.id, t.name, SUM(val) FROM t2 t)
GROUP BY t.id, t.name;
That does not work in 5.0 either (at least in 5.0.96):
ERROR 1064 (42000): You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the
manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right
syntax
or in your SQL syntax; check the
manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right
syntax to use near 'GROUP BY t.AccountID,
I suspect your query has never been doing what you think at all, and you need to
select [fields] from (
select fields1 blahblah
UN
has never been doing what you think at all, and you need
to
select [fields] from (
select fields1 blahblah
UNION
select fields2 blahblah) unionized
group by blurb
that is, wrap the entire union in a virtual table and do the group by on that.
--
Unhappiness is discouraged and
shorter but equivalent query, you have:
(SELECT t.id, t.name, SUM(val) FROM t1 t)
UNION
(SELECT t.id, t.name, SUM(val) FROM t2 t)
GROUP BY t.id, t.name;
That does not work in 5.0 either (at least in 5.0.96):
ERROR 1064 (42000): You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the
JOIN client2 c ON t.ClientID=c.ID
LEFT JOIN tocname tc ON t.TOC=tc.toc
LEFT JOIN network n ON t.NetworkID=n.ID
WHERE t.toc=1
AND SUBSTRING(t.Day,1,7) >= '2013-08'
AND SUBSTRING(t.Day,1,7) <= '2013-11')
UNION
(SELECT SUBSTRING(t.Day,1,7) AS Date,
just the
second SELECT.
> -Original Message-
> From: Hal?sz S?ndor [mailto:h...@tbbs.net]
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 4:07 PM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: UNION and ORDER BY
>
> >>>> 2012/06/20 14:32 -0700, Rick James >>>>
>
>>>> 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
Why would using UNION cause the subqueries to be de-optimized?
explain
(SELECT count(gamename) as gname ,variation from zertz_gamerecord
where (gmtdate > date_sub(current_timestamp(),interval 90 day)) and
(player1='13213' or player2='13213' ) group by variation limit
We've been experimenting with the merge engine.
But suppose that instead of using the MERGE engine I instead modified my
code to UNION ALL the shards.
Would I get worse performance? In other words, besides the convenience,
does the MERGE engine have specific performance optimizations
Yes, that's the trick. Thank Rudy and Gavin.
Best,
Jia
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Gavin Towey wrote:
> Union does a distinct on all results. UNION ALL will avoid that.
>
> Regards,
> Gavin Towey
>
> -Original Message-
> From: chen.1...@gmail.com [mail
Union does a distinct on all results. UNION ALL will avoid that.
Regards,
Gavin Towey
-Original Message-
From: chen.1...@gmail.com [mailto:chen.1...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of chen jia
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 11:07 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Slow Union Statement
Hi there
On 04/05/2010 02:06 PM, chen jia wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I run simple statement like this:
>
> create table c
> select * from a
> union
> select * from b;
>
> where table a has 90,402,534 rows, and table b has 33,358,725 rows.
> Both tables have the same three
Hi there,
I run simple statement like this:
create table c
select * from a
union
select * from b;
where table a has 90,402,534 rows, and table b has 33,358,725 rows.
Both tables have the same three variables.
It's taken a long time, more than half an hour now. How do I make it faster?
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Gavin Towey wrote:
> The form would be like:
>
> CREATE TABLE products
> SELECT b0basics, b0fieldValues, s0prescriptions,
> s0prescriptions0doctors, s0prescriptions0patient, pics FROM table1
> UNION
> SELECT b0basics, b0fieldVa
The form would be like:
CREATE TABLE products
SELECT b0basics, b0fieldValues, s0prescriptions,
s0prescriptions0doctors, s0prescriptions0patient, pics FROM table1
UNION
SELECT b0basics, b0fieldValues, s0prescriptions,
s0prescriptions0doctors, s0prescriptions0patient, pics FROM table2
Regards
Hi;
I would like to create a table out of merging the fields in other,
previously created tables. I have the following syntax which doesn't work:
create table products union (b0basics, b0fieldValues, s0prescriptions,
s0prescriptions0doctors, s0prescriptions0patient, pics);
Please advise
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: joerg.bru...@sun.com [mailto:joerg.bru...@sun.com]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. Oktober 2009 15:26
> An: Skoric, Majk
> Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Betreff: Re: OR vs UNION
>
> Majk, all,
>
>
> I'm no optimizer
--+
> | id | select_type | table | type| possible_keys |
> key| key_len | ref | rows | Extra
> |
> ++-+---+-++-
> ---+-+--+--+
> --+
> | 1 | SIM
---+
| 1 | SIMPLE | KTEMP | index_merge | buchungs_kunde_id,kunde_id |
buchungs_kunde_id,kunde_id | 71,71 | NULL |2 | Using
union(bu
se_id ) representing a user's answer to a
survey.
I'm trying to determine how many surveys per show responded with response_id
30 and response_id 28
I think I need a union here, but am not sure.
So far, I THINK I can figure out how many surveys per show responded with just
response 30 as f
glenn
Union is 4.0 feature.
david
>Notwithstanding end-of-life status, is there an issue in MySQL
>v3.23 r.e. the "union" operator?
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim Winstead wrote, On 1/11/2008 12:54 PM:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:28:05PM -0800, Glenn Gillis wrote:
Notwithstanding end-of-life status, is there an issue in MySQL v3.23
r.e. the "union" operator?
My installation returns a syntax error on any query containing the union
oper
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:28:05PM -0800, Glenn Gillis wrote:
> Notwithstanding end-of-life status, is there an issue in MySQL v3.23
> r.e. the "union" operator?
>
> My installation returns a syntax error on any query containing the union
> operator, even with the sampl
Notwithstanding end-of-life status, is there an issue in MySQL v3.23
r.e. the "union" operator?
My installation returns a syntax error on any query containing the union
operator, even with the sample queries provided in the documentation:
mysql> SELECT REPEAT('a',1)
On Wednesday 11 July 2007 00:34, Anders Karlsson wrote:
> UNION will only return distinct rows. This is according to spec and to
> the SQL Standard.
And of course, to no one's surprise, this also matches the mathematical
definition of union:
j
--
Joshua Kugler
UNION is mean to removed duplicate rows. Use "UNION ALL" if you don't want
this to happen.
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/union.html
-Original Message-
From: list account [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 11 July 2007 09:19
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subjec
UNION will only return distinct rows. This is according to spec and to
the SQL Standard. To avoid this, use UNION ALL instead of UNION. Try
that with your queries and you'll see that this will do the trick. This
is, as I said, in accordance with the standard and the way all SQL based
data
Hi all,
I believe to have found a bug in MySQL's union implementation. Can someone
confirm this, please or convince me that this is not a buggy behaviour of
mysql :
UNION seems to behave like DISTINCT by default:
mysql> select 2 c1
-> union
-> select 1 c1
-> union
Hi everyone,
I have a couple of questions invovling using FOUND_ROWS() and UNION.
The manual states that:
"The value of FOUND_ROWS() is exact only if UNION ALL is used. If
UNION without ALL
is used, duplicate removal occurs and the value of FOUND_ROWS() is
only approximate."
I am u
A big "Thank you" goes to you! That was it!
Looks like I tried with too many parentheses i.e.
/this is wrong/
SELECT FROM ...
(
(SELECT FROM ...)
UNION
(SELECT FROM ...)
) AS abc
Regards,
Luke
- Original Message -
From: "Neeraj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Luke..
Try this
SELECT ObjectId FROM
(SELECT f15.Form15SampleTube1RnaBarcode AS ObjectId,
f15.Form15PatientID AS PtId FROM form15 f15
WHERE f15.Form15SampleTube1RnaBarcode IN ('01D2V','01DH6')
UNION
SELECT f15.Form15SampleTube6RnaBarcode AS ObjectId,
f15.Form
Hello!
I have a problem using UNIONs inside subqueries. I have simplified my
query to make it more readable/understandable.
The question is about the right syntax.
1.
This works fine /UNION/
(SELECT f15.Form15SampleTube1RnaBarcode AS ObjectId,
f15.Form15PatientID AS PtId FROM form15
"H L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/03/2006 01:53:37 PM:
>
> >The solution is to redesign your tables. You need to split into
separate
> >columns the values you want to maintain. You do not want to keep the
"flat
> >file" design you are currently trying to use.
> >
> >CREATE TABLE calendar (
The solution is to redesign your tables. You need to split into separate
columns the values you want to maintain. You do not want to keep the "flat
file" design you are currently trying to use.
CREATE TABLE calendar (
objectid,
year,
dayofyear,
... other fields...
)
CREATE TABLE price
"H L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/02/2006 11:51:48 AM:
> Hi, i have a problem to select sum from same table using UNION. The
key
> question is there a way of combining two questions in one so the
resulting
> objectid in query1 is only used in query 2 in a sm
Hi, i have a problem to select sum from same table using UNION. The key
question is there a way of combining two questions in one so the resulting
objectid in query1 is only used in query 2 in a smart way. Eg. if only one
object is avaliable in a search first year then only check that
"Shaun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
The following 3 queries on their own produce more rows than if I UNION
them
together:
SELECT CONCAT('Y',DATE_FORMAT(Date,'%Y')) AS Booking_Year,
CONCAT('M',DATE_FOR
The UNION Syntax is:
SELECT ...
UNION [ALL | DISTINCT]
SELECT ...
[UNION [ALL | DISTINCT]
SELECT ...]
Lower in the manual it says:
* A DISTINCT union can be produced explicitly by using UNION
DISTINCT or implicitly by using UNION with no following DISTINCT or ALLkeyword.
*
**
So
Hi,
The following 3 queries on their own produce more rows than if I UNION them
together:
SELECT CONCAT('Y',DATE_FORMAT(Date,'%Y')) AS Booking_Year,
CONCAT('M',DATE_FORMAT(Date,'%c')) AS Booking_Month,
CONCAT('USR_', B.User_ID) AS User,
Booking_
Interesting... maybe this is because the fill is not actualy stored in the
database... and being sorted/compared as a number MySQL removes the ZEROFILL
!
You can go and do:
select BINARY * from a
union
select BINARY * from a;
--
Gabriel PREDA
Senior Web Developer
On 2/14/06, Juri Shimon
Hello mysql,
Union on zerofilled fields eats 'zerofilling'.
How to repeat:
> create table a (id integer zerofill);
> insert into a values(1),(2),(3);
> select * from a;
++
| id |
++
| 01 |
| 02 |
| 03 |
++
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|
+-+--+
| protocol_vers
|
> | character_set_server | latin1 |
> | character_set_system | utf8 |
> | character_sets_dir | /usr/share/mysql/charsets/ |
> +--++
> 7 rows in set (0.00 sec)
>
> localhost.addresses2> show session variables like "collat%
+
| collation_connection | utf8_general_ci |
| collation_database | latin1_swedish_ci |
| collation_server | latin1_swedish_ci |
+--+---+
3 rows in set (0.00 sec)
localhost.addresses2>
4. following problem:
when i do a union statement between the tw
I have a simple stored procedure which works as intended.
As soon as I add a UNION in the SELECT I get the error message
ERROR 1064 (42000): You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the
manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right
syntax to use near 'select phon_Lvl
ed" values are very big and the other Qty values are very small...
By now, I'm sending 50 "insert into summarytable select * from table-xx
on duplicate key update commands.
After explaining my details, I would like to know, if there is a
possibility of a command like
insert i
HALIL DEMIREZEN wrote:
Michael,
Thank you and all for effort to help.. I solved the problem by giving high
limit numbers such as;
(select * from tablea where item=1 order by rand() limit 0, 1)
union all
(select * from tablea where item != 1 order by rand() limit 0,
1
--
>
>
>
>
> Gleb Paharenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 05.12.2005 12:19
>
> To
> mysql@lists.mysql.com
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: About union sql Mysql 4.x
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello.
>
>
>
Michael,
Thank you and all for effort to help.. I solved the problem by giving high
limit numbers such as;
(select * from tablea where item=1 order by rand() limit 0, 1)
union all
(select * from tablea where item != 1 order by rand() limit 0,
1
HALIL DEMIREZEN wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to run an sql query such as below to list items=x randomly and
> then items != x randomly..
>
>
> mysql> (select * from tablea where item=1 order by rand()) union all
> (select * from tablea where item != 1 order by rand())
]
---
Gleb Paharenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
05.12.2005 12:19
To
mysql@lists.mysql.com
cc
Subject
Re: About union sql Mysql 4.x
Hello.
>From http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/union.html:
"ORDER BY for individual SELECT sta
se ORDER BY doen't
work for your query.
HALIL DEMIREZEN wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to run an sql query such as below to list items=x randomly and
> then items != x randomly..
>
>
> mysql> (select * from tablea where item=1 order by rand()) union all
Hi,
I am trying to run an sql query such as below to list items=x randomly and
then items != x randomly..
mysql> (select * from tablea where item=1 order by rand()) union all
(select * from tablea where item != 1 order by rand());
but the result is not as expected. rand() seems not to
"Simon Longstaff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on
10/28/2005 10:50:24 AM:
> I'm trying to run this :
>
> SELECT DISTINCT A.B_IP FROM w3t_Posts A , w3t_Users B WHERE A.B_PosterID
=
> B.U_Number and B.U_Username = 'user1'
> UNION
> SELECT DIS
I'm trying to run this :
SELECT DISTINCT A.B_IP FROM w3t_Posts A , w3t_Users B WHERE A.B_PosterID =
B.U_Number and B.U_Username = 'user1'
UNION
SELECT DISTINCT C.B_IP FROM w3t_Posts C , w3t_Users D WHERE C.B_PosterID =
D.U_Number and D.U_Username = 'user2'
and it'
Hello.
> MySQL error 1267: Illegal mix of collations (latin1_swedish_ci,COERCIBLE)
>and (utf8_general_ci,IMPLICIT) for operation 'UNION' -- again
Check the character set of fields in you tables with
'SHOW CREATE TABLE' statement. I recommend you to test if
the
Hi list,
I've got a query coming out of sugarCRM that is generating this error:
MySQL error 1267: Illegal mix of collations
(latin1_swedish_ci,COERCIBLE) and (utf8_general_ci,IMPLICIT) for
operation 'UNION'
I recently converted the entire database to utf8 - made sure all the
EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 4:25 PM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Union vs OR
>
> I have a table that holds attributes for users. This is the structure:
>
> TABLE properties (
> id int(11) NOT NULL,
> userid int
It's getting late on Friday, but couldn't you build a table with all of
the parameter combinations and then just join against that table?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 4:25 PM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject
I have a table that holds attributes for users. This is the structure:
TABLE properties (
id int(11) NOT NULL,
userid int(11) NOT NULL,
attrType int(11) NOT NULL,
attrValue text NOT NULL,
FULLTEXT KEY propValue (propValue)
) TYPE=MyISAM;
The table is used to find people based on criteri
Hey Gleb,
thanks for taking your time!
php.ini:
; As of 4.0b4, PHP always outputs a character encoding by default in
; the Content-type: header. To disable sending of the charset, simply
; set it to be empty.
;
; PHP's built-in default is text/html
default_mimetype = "text/html"
default_char
Hello.
What is the value of the default_charset variable in your php.ini file?
What version of MySQL do you use?
Florian Burkart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What might help as well is another problem I have:
>
> Somehow, the data I am getting out of mysql and php and is being served
Send the output of
> SHOW CREATE TABLE tbl_gruppen;
>
> Florian Burkart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hey everyone,
> >
> > can't figure this one out, might be easy for one of you.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is the query:
> > (SELE
LE tbl_gruppen;
>
> Florian Burkart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hey everyone,
> >
> > can't figure this one out, might be easy for one of you.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is the query:
> > (SELECT 'Neue Gruppe' AS gruppen
>
>
>
> This is the query:
> (SELECT 'Neue Gruppe' AS gruppenstring, '-1' AS gruppe_id)
> UNION ALL
> (SELECT CONCAT( gruppe, ' (', kommentar, ')' ) AS gruppenstring, gruppe_id
> FROM tbl_gruppen
> ORDER BY grupp
Hey everyone,
can't figure this one out, might be easy for one of you.
This is the query:
(SELECT 'Neue Gruppe' AS gruppenstring, '-1' AS gruppe_id)
UNION ALL
(SELECT CONCAT( gruppe, ' (', kommentar, ')' ) AS gruppenstring, gruppe_id
FROM tbl_grupp
Hey everyone,
can't figure this one out, might be easy for one of you.
This is the query:
(SELECT 'Neue Gruppe' AS gruppenstring, '-1' AS gruppe_id)
UNION ALL
(SELECT CONCAT( gruppe, ' (', kommentar, ')' ) AS gruppenstring, gruppe_id
FROM tbl_grupp
>From http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/union.html :
"Before MySQL 4.1.1, a limitation of UNION is that only the values
from the first SELECT are used to determine result column types and
lengths. This could result in value truncation if, for example, the
first SELECT retrieves shorte
I have a UNION whose statements when interchanged gives a different result. I
can understand the change in the order of the rows, but how is it that
'picture' gets the correct value in (a) but not in (b)? Here are the two
queries and their results:
(a)
(SELECT u.lName last_name,
?
Thanks :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure about index merging but you should be able to speed
things up if you ORDER BY and LIMIT your inner queries as well:
(SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE a='a' ORDER BY id limit 0,5)
UNION
(SELECT * FROM t2 WHERE a='a' ORDER BY id limit
I am not sure about index merging but you should be able to speed things
up if you ORDER BY and LIMIT your inner queries as well:
(SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE a='a' ORDER BY id limit 0,5)
UNION
(SELECT * FROM t2 WHERE a='a' ORDER BY id limit 0,5)
ORDER BY id LIMIT 0,5
To ans
(`id`),
KEY `a` (`a`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
mysql> EXPLAIN (SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE a='a') UNION (SELECT * FROM t2
WHERE a='a') ORDER BY id LIMIT 0,5 \G
*** 1. row ***
id: 1
Hello.
MySQL uses indexes in queries which are parts of UNION. See:
mysql> explain (select * from t1 where a=5) union (select * from t1 where
a=3)\G;
*** 1. row ***
id: 1
select_type: PRIMARY
table: t1
t
Hello,
MySQL implemented index_merge in version 5...
Does MySQL supports something like index_merge to speed up UNION
queries? If yes, for which version (assumed release time)?
Does anyone know of other DBs systems that can speed up UNION queries?
This issue is quite critical for our system
Hello.
Check with SHOW PROCESSLIST in which state MySQL thread which performs
the query is. See:
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/show-processlist.html
Chris Faulkner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello again
>
> Following on from this index question, the UNION
Hello again
Following on from this index question, the UNION worked. From a normal
mysql client, it was returning my results sub-second. I am actually
executing this over JDBC, using mysql-connector j.
WHen I put the SQL into my Java program - it takes a minute or so. I
am logging the SQL and if
Hello.
I've searched in the archives at:
http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
but the only thing I've found is that the speed difference is rather low. In my
opinion, using UNION is a more flexible solution.
pow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
Hi everyone,
Take for example two identical tables A & B, and a MERGE table merging
both of them.
Would there be any performance advantage if I do a select (with a where
criteria on an indexed column) on the MERGE table, as opposed to doing a
union of two selects with the same WHERE crit
s of statements' results should have the same type.
Try to cnage order of SELECTs in your query.. I think you'll get what
you want.
Right, the type of each column is determined by the first SELECT in the UNION.
Hence, your VARCHARs are converted to INTs because they are in an INT c
Dennis Duggen wrote:
Hi list
Im new to the list so i hope it's the right place for my post.
For a projekt i am combining different tables. Everything seems to work,
but in some rows the "Kode" field VARCHAR(10) ends up as INT. I will try
to explain with an example.
Table1
46
47
48
67
Table2
B
`teaser` ,
`text`
);
INSERT INTO searchTemp
(
SELECT 'content', id, headline, text, teaser, image_id FROM content
)
UNION ALL
(
SELECT 'wesHoldKategori', wesHoldKategori.Kode AS id, Navn AS headline,
Beskrivelse AS text
Kevin Burton wrote:
Any idea whats going on and how I could fix this?
This seems like a bug in the SQL parser. The LIMIT is only ignored in this one
situation.
If I just add a:
UNION
(SELECT * FROM FOO LIMIT 0)
To the query will work correctly.
This might be an acceptable workaround
Why do you think you're using a UNION in your query? The keyword UNION
doesn't appear anywhere in your query. You don't even have a second query
being UNIONed to the first. All you've got is a pair of parentheses
surrounding your original query, which seems to perform okay.
Fo
ire
SQL expression is evaluated which is then given to the union. Evil I
say! Pure evil!
I was able to figure this out because Handler_read_next was being
incremented to the same value as the total number of rows in this
expression.
Cool now at least I know why its screwing up.
Ke
Here's a big problem I'm having.
If I have a query like:
SELECT * FROM FOO WHERE FOO.LAST_UPDATED < 1119898418779 AND
FOO.FEED_ID = 1 ORDER BY FOO.LAST_UPDATED DESC LIMIT 10
it only takes about 10ms or so to execute.
but... if I rewrite it to wrap it in a union like so:
( SELE
o a simple query.
The only condition is to add a where clause a the column "type" which will
retreive empty set for the non selected conditions.
Example :!
set @cat1:='news'; set @cat2:='faq'; set @cat3:='forum';
mysql> select id,@cat1 as selected, typ
ample :!
>
> set @cat1:='news'; set @cat2:='faq'; set @cat3:='forum';
>
> mysql> select id,@cat1 as selected, type from news where [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -> union select id,@cat2 as selected, type from faq where [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
>
Sebastian wrote:
Ah.. OK. I'll give that a shot instead..
Also, now that i am doing some thinking on optimizing... should the $cat
clause be present first in the where clause? since it decides if it
should get results or not. for example:
WHERE MATCH(...) AGAINST(... IN BOOLEAN MODE) AND ('$
E ($cat = '' OR $cat = 'news')
UNION
SELECT id, 'faq' AS type, FROM faq
WHERE ($cat = '' OR $cat = 'faq')
UNION
SELECT id, 'forum' AS type, FROM forum
WHERE ($cat = '
Sebastian wrote:
Michael Stassen wrote:
Now, I never said this couldn't be done in SQL. Assuming $cat is
already set, the statement in $sql below should do what you asked for:
$sql = "SELECT id, 'news' AS type, FROM news
WHERE ($cat = '' O
beholder.
Perhaps you'll prefer the one-statement-in-sql version I sent in my
first reply to Mathias' suggestions. It's just a matter of adding 2
conditions to each WHERE clause in the UNION, so I think it will meet
your specs, even for your real query.
Michael
--
MySQL General
Michael Stassen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Sebastian;
There is always crazy things somewhere.
I'll give you two methods for that :
mysql> select id,'news' as selected, type from news
-> union select id,'faq' as selected, type from faq
-> u
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with you,
just see that if ..
sql = "SELECT id, '$cat' AS type, ... FROM $cat";
is exactly what is done in prepare statement.
Yes, I acknowledged that in my next message (a reply to yours).
dynamic sql is better than application level statement preparation, w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Sebastian;
There is always crazy things somewhere.
I'll give you two methods for that :
mysql> select id,'news' as selected, type from news
-> union select id,'faq' as selected, type from faq
-> union select id,&#
Michael Stassen wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
Michael Stassen wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
i have a query with 3 union selects:
SELECT id, 'news' AS type, FROM news
UNION
SELECT id, 'faq' AS type, .... FROM faq
UNION
SELECT id, 'forum' A
, i'll keep this for
oracle, and other rdbms.
P.S. haven't spent days to help. It is easy. And since it was a week-end :o)
Mathias
Selon Michael Stassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sebastian wrote:
>
> > Michael Stassen wrote:
> >
> >> Sebastian wrote:
> >
Sebastian wrote:
Michael Stassen wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
i have a query with 3 union selects:
SELECT id, 'news' AS type, FROM news
UNION
SELECT id, 'faq' AS type, .... FROM faq
UNION
SELECT id, 'forum' AS type, FROM forum
whi
The second method is dynamic sql with prepare statement from string.
It's better for the reason that the query is generated to retrieve data from
just one table (not an union which implies 3 tables).
The day your tables will be huge, i'm sure you will use the second method.
two crazy
things somewhere.
I'll give you two methods for that :
mysql> select id,'news' as selected, type from news
-> union select id,'faq' as selected, type from faq
-> union select id,'forum' as selected, type from forum;
+--+
1 - 100 of 342 matches
Mail list logo
