Hi,
I wonder, if the following is correct and provides expected result:
test=# select generate_series(1, 2), generate_series(1, 4);
generate_series | generate_series
-+-
1 | 1
2 | 2
1 |
A Dimecres 19 Març 2008, Nikolay Samokhvalov va escriure:
2. Why the query above provides 4 rows, not 2*4=8? Actually, that's
interesting -- I can use this query to find l.c.m. But it's defenetely
not that I'd expect before my try...
2*4 = 8:
select * from generate_series(1, 2) a,
Le mercredi 19 mars 2008, Albert Cervera i Areny a écrit :
Hi !
A Dimecres 19 Març 2008, Nikolay Samokhvalov va escriure:
2. Why the query above provides 4 rows, not 2*4=8? Actually, that's
interesting -- I can use this query to find l.c.m. But it's defenetely
not that I'd expect before
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Nikolay Samokhvalov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wonder, if the following is correct and provides expected result:
test=# select generate_series(1, 2), generate_series(1, 4);
generate_series | generate_series
-+-
1 |
Nikolay Samokhvalov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. Is it correct at all to use SRF in select list, w/o explicit FROM?
You can read about the current behavior in ExecTargetList, but basically
the idea is to cycle all the SRFs until they all say done at the same
time. So the number of result rows
