Alban Hertroys skrev:
Nis Jørgensen wrote:
If you can't wait, you are probably better off working around the
problem. Standard solution is to do:
UPDATE master SET m2 = -m2;
UPDATE master SET m2 = -m2+1;
or something similar.
Would something like
UPDATE master set m2 = master2.m2
Nis Jørgensen wrote:
Alban Hertroys skrev:
Would something like
UPDATE master set m2 = master2.m2
FROM (
SELECT m2 +1
FROM master m
WHERE m.master_id = master.master_id
ORDER BY m2 DESC
) master2
work? I think it might be faster (and possibly cause less index
Nis Jørgensen wrote:
If you can't wait, you are probably better off working around the
problem. Standard solution is to do:
UPDATE master SET m2 = -m2;
UPDATE master SET m2 = -m2+1;
or something similar.
Would something like
UPDATE master set m2 = master2.m2
FROM (
SELECT m2
Alban Hertroys skrev:
Nis Jørgensen wrote:
Alban Hertroys skrev:
Would something like
UPDATE master set m2 = master2.m2
FROM (
SELECT m2 +1
FROM master m
WHERE m.master_id = master.master_id
ORDER BY m2 DESC
) master2
work? I think it might be faster (and
I had to manipulate the headers a bit, as I hadn't noticed the message
that reached me first was from the newsgroup instead of the ML.
Nis Jørgensen wrote:
Alban Hertroys skrev:
As I said, I don't understand what you think it does. What you are doing
is similar to writing
SELECT m2
FROM
Alban Hertroys skrev:
Nis Jørgensen wrote:
Alban Hertroys skrev:
As I said, I don't understand what you think it does. What you are doing
is similar to writing
SELECT m2
FROM master, (
SELECT m2
FROM master m
WHERE m.master_id = master.master_id
)
Which doesn'
Ardian Xharra skrev:
*From:* Anoo Sivadasan Pillai mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am not using any sequences, The following batch can reproduce the
behaviour.
CREATE TABLE master ( m1 INT primary key , m2 int unique ) ;
INSERT INTO master VALUES ( 1, 1 ) ;
INSERT INTO master VALUES ( 2, 2)
