On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 06:08:30PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How do I do regular expression for the problem that I am having
> I have a string called desc, and say that this string in
>
> "TSWUU" -- ""
> "4 - DSC"-- "4"
> "6768 - THY" -- "6768"
>
> basic
Try this,
select substring('6768 - THY','[0-9]*');
substring
---
6768
(1 row)On 10/4/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:How do I do regular _expression_ for the problem that I am havingI have a string called desc, and say that this string in
"TSWUU" -- """4 - DS
Hi there
This is my first posting here, please forgive me if I make any
mistakes here.
Ok
I have the structure
{CLIENTS} = Client ID, First Name, Surname, DOB, Address, Home Phone
No, Mobile Phone No
As one relation / table (There are several others in this db that are
not related to this is
I have a large number of tables with a common naming convention
basically:
table001, table002, table003 ... table00n
I would like to do a query across all of the tables, however I do not
know all of the tables before hand, and I do not want to manually
generate a query like
select *
hi guys,
i m trying to get the user created tables from SQL by using C++ Builder.Here is the code:
TQuery *TableQuery; TableQuery= new TQuery (this);
TQuery *TableCountQuery; TableCountQuery= new TQuery (this);
TableQuery->DatabaseName = "TEMP"; TableCountQu
I am storing data separated by month.
How do I perform Inserts and Selects based on something like this.
select * from (select 'shipped' || '0509') AS aShippingTable
The table 'shipped' || '0509' exists.
I am scanning barcode labels which have the '0509' on them and I want to
move the data
to
I can't find a good way to skip over a large number of records in PLPGSQL (I
want to fast-forward and I don't need the I/O of reading and throwing away
hundreds of records.) In SQL, I could just use MOVE. That doesn't appear to be
supported in PLPGSQL?! Help?
---(end of
How do I do regular expression for the problem that I am having
I have a string called desc, and say that this string in
"TSWUU" -- ""
"4 - DSC"-- "4"
"6768 - THY" -- "6768"
basically string may or may not start with number,
I need substring of digits parts
""
again, do you really want to join the tables or do a UNION ALL. From one of
your posts you said the table were the
same.
you need to do something like
select * from table_001
union all
select * from table_002
...
select * from table_999
I would do this in a set returning function looping of an
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 07:50:28PM -0400, Ferindo Middleton Jr wrote:
> Based on the feedback I received after I made that original post, it
> seemed most people don't use SERIAL with a unique constraint or primary
> key and I was blasted for making such a suggestion. I'm sorry... It
I don't
Richard Huxton wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Is there some reason why the SERIAL data type doesn't
automatically have a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT.
It used to, and then we decoupled it.
[snip]
Arguably it would have been better to make the default case add either
UNIQUE or PRIMARY KEY with a way to over
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:33:14AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 20:03, Tom Lane wrote:
Ferindo Middleton Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Is there some reason why the SERIAL data type doesn't automatically have
a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT.
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Is there some reason why the SERIAL data type doesn't automatically have
a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT.
It used to, and then we decoupled it.
[snip]
Arguably it would have been better to make the default case add either
UNIQUE or PRIMARY KEY with a way to over-ride.
Arguably SERIA
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:33:14AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 20:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> > 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
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 05:37:47PM -0400, Matt Emmerton wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Russell Simpkins
> To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 4:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [SQL] Help with multistage query
>
> I have a perl script that issu
Yasir --
You wrote:
>If I generate a temporary table instead of returning the results how
>long will that table exist for? Excuse the OOP terminology but would
>it be correct to create a 'Singleton' to access the temporary table,
>where if it exists and is less than 30 minutes old use that one,
I managed to make this work as sub query before... I wish I had
written it down somewhere...
Regarding the creation of a function. I do have a function that
almost does that. I'm having a hard time getting it to return a set
of records from the EXECUTE command ( more than one row returned by
the
do you mean UNION ALL instead of JOIN, if you mean UNION ALL , I would go with
a set returning function passing it
the necessary WHERE clause to be applied to all of your tables. You might be
able to wrap the whole thing into a view
-- Original Message ---
From: solarsail <[
The current behavior is by design.
We use the table as a logging repository. It can get very large 250 000
records. Because of the large number of records that we have in the table we
found it was much faster to perform inserts on a smaller table. Our current
system rolls the tables over every 12
The current behavior is by design.
We use the table as a logging repository. It can get very large
250 000 records. Because of the large number of records that we
have in the table we found it was much faster to perform inserts on a
smaller table. Our current system rolls the tables over
every
solarsail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a large number of tables with a common naming convention
> mytable001, mytable002, mytable003 ... mytable00n
> I would like to do a query across all of the tables, however I do not know
> all of the tables before hand, and I do not want to ( cant ) m
I have a large number of tables with a common naming convention
mytable001, mytable002, mytable003 ... mytable00n
I would like to do a query across all of the tables, however I do not
know all of the tables before hand, and I do not want to ( cant ) manually
generate a query like
"jan aerts (RI)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My Postgres version is 7.3.4 (on a central server, so I can't upgrade if
> that would be one of the suggestions...)
7.3.4 has multiple known data-loss bugs and security issues. If you're
dealing with someone who won't upgrade it, find someone else to
My Postgres version is 7.3.4 (on a central server, so I can't upgrade if
that would be one of the suggestions...)
It is indeed completely valid to make such a temporary table, but I need
this function to help me automate some standard queries other people can
make on the database. In other words:
24 matches
Mail list logo