On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 06:12:20PM -0500, Corey Tisdale wrote:
> We also weren't adding image data to blobs, we were bit mapping
> faceted data to blob and shifting to allow people to shop by artist or
> color or subject matter across millions of posters. Normalized tables
> just weren't cutt
You may have nailed it. Everythig would have been indexed I. The order
it was grouped by, so perhaps the order in which things are indexed
and accesse is the kicker, or perhaps we've been consistantly lucky.
We also weren't adding image data to blobs, we were bit mapping
faceted data to blo
Corey Tisdale writes:
> We're coming from mysql 4, and changing the sort order changes the
> values of all columns as you would expect, given that you would expect
> a sort statement to affect grouping. This certainly isn't the only
> time I've used this syntax. I've been mysql user for ten
anipulation, nous ne pouvons accepter aucune responsabilité
pour le contenu fourni.
> From: co...@eyewantmedia.com
> To: t...@sss.pgh.pa.us
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Embarassing GROUP question
> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 16:56:02 -0500
> CC: s...@samason.me.uk; pgsql-general@postgr
We're coming from mysql 4, and changing the sort order changes the
values of all columns as you would expect, given that you would expect
a sort statement to affect grouping. This certainly isn't the only
time I've used this syntax. I've been mysql user for ten years, and
the outcome has b
Sam Mason writes:
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 01:05:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> but looking at this example, and presuming that you find that
>> it actually does something useful, I wonder whether they interpret
>> the combination of GROUP BY and ambiguous-per-spec ORDER BY
>> in some fashion sim
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 01:05:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> What you might be after is something like Postgres' DISTINCT ON
> feature
Yup, looks that way to me as well.
> I have never really played around with this aspect of MySQL ...
Me neither.
> but looking at this example, and presuming tha
Corey Tisdale writes:
> SELECT
> meaningful_data,
> event_type,
> event_date
> FROM
> event_log
> GROUP BY
> event_type
> ORDER BY
> event_date DESC
Is event_type a primary key, or at least a candidate key, for this
table? (I would guess not based on the name.
Hi all,
I'm a recent MySQL convert, and I am having some difficulty with
syntax on grouping a table by a foreign key and returning only the
newest entry that matches. In MySQL, you can do something like
event_log
id
event_type
event_date
meaningful_data
SELECT
meaning
