Am 26.09.2005 um 02:05 schrieb Michael Fuhr:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 09:19:25PM +0200, Axel Rau wrote:
Am 23.09.2005 um 19:32 schrieb Michael Fuhr:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 06:31:17PM +0200, Axel Rau wrote:
Networks change during time, being diveded or aggregated or you just
enter wrong data
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it possible to delete a record from all tables in the database at
the same time, without having to execute a separate DELETE statement
for each table?
I have a situation where I need to delete user records from our system.
The user account information is spread
Is there a way to check for the existence of a column in a table other
than, say, doing a SELECT on that column name and checking the output?
I'm basically looking to do an ALTER TABLE foo ADD COLUMN bar if bar
doesn't exist.
Thanks.
--
Brandon
---(end of
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 12:34:59PM +0200, Axel Rau wrote:
Am 26.09.2005 um 02:05 schrieb Michael Fuhr:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 09:19:25PM +0200, Axel Rau wrote:
I'm sure this would be the cleanest solution but remember networks
change.
Yes, which is why it's a good idea to
Brandon Metcalf wrote:
Is there a way to check for the existence of a column in a table
other than, say, doing a SELECT on that column name and checking the
output?
SELECT * FROM information_schema.columns;
Customize to taste.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Is there supported syntax to do 'deep' queries? That is where A relates to B relates to C, returning fields from each table?
This doesn't seem to work. Is there a google-able term for this sort of query?
select
foo.aaa,
bar.bbb,
baz.ccc
from
foo,bar,baz
where
foo.bar_id = bar.id
and
Is there some reason why the SERIAL data type doesn't automatically have
a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT. It seems that the main reason for using it is so
that the value for this field keeps changing automatically and is never
null so any one record can be identified using it- So why not imply that
it is
Is there supported syntax to do 'deep' queries? That is where
A relates to B relates to C, returning fields from each table?
This doesn't seem to work. Is there a google-able term for
this sort of query?
select
foo.aaa,
bar.bbb,
baz.ccc
from
foo,bar,baz
where
that query is 100% correct.
its just an equijoin (a type of
inner join) between 3 tables.
the syntax you show is how queries should
be written and is more
representative of what a joins between
relations really are:
Cartesian products with filters applied
the ansi syntax, the
Ferindo Middleton Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there some reason why the SERIAL data type doesn't automatically have
a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT.
It used to, and then we decoupled it. I don't think I have no use for
one without the other translates to an argument that no one has a use
for it ...
You're right, Tom. I'm sure someone has a use for a serial field that
isn't unique. I just assumed that it was. I guess I didn't read the
documentation closely enough. At any rate, I had a table using a serial
field that I had to restore to a previous date when I noticed that I
forgot to set
Nevermind. It's late here and I'm not thinking clearly. Problem solved.
12 matches
Mail list logo
