Re: Using <=> in WHERE vs HAVING clause

2005-02-22 Thread Rene Churchill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > This is what I wound up going with: > > > > > > SELECT b.id, > > > if(a.a <=> b.a, NULL, b.a), > > > if(a.b <=> b.b, NULL, b.b), > > > if(a.c <=> b.c, NULL, b.c), > > > (NOT (a.a <=> b.a) AND > > > (a.b <=>

Re: Using <=> in WHERE vs HAVING clause

2005-02-22 Thread SGreen
Rene Churchill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02/22/2005 04:23:47 PM: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Rene Churchill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02/22/2005 03:39:05 PM: > > > Hi Shawn, > > > > > > This is what I wound up going with: > > > > > > SELECT b.id, > > > if(a.a <=> b.a, NULL,

Re: Using <=> in WHERE vs HAVING clause

2005-02-22 Thread SGreen
Rene Churchill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02/22/2005 09:21:29 AM: > Good evening folks, I'm seeing some odd behavior in MySQL 4.0.21 > running on Mac OS X 10.3.7 > > I'm trying to compare two identical tables and find the rows > that are new/modified. I can't use a timestamp column because > t

Using <=> in WHERE vs HAVING clause

2005-02-22 Thread Rene Churchill
Good evening folks, I'm seeing some odd behavior in MySQL 4.0.21 running on Mac OS X 10.3.7 I'm trying to compare two identical tables and find the rows that are new/modified. I can't use a timestamp column because the "new" table is constantly regenerated. So I'm using a large WHERE clause and t

Using <=> in WHERE vs HAVING clause

2005-02-21 Thread Rene Churchill
Good evening folks, I'm seeing some odd behavior in MySQL 4.0.21 running on Mac OS X 10.3.7 I'm trying to compare two identical tables and find the rows that are new/modified. I can't use a timestamp column because the "new" table is constantly regenerated. So I'm using a large WHERE clause and t