chester c young writes:
>> here is a test case:
[ slightly less messed-up test case for anyone who wants to duplicate this: ]
create schema s1;
create schema s2;
create table s1.t1(
c1 bigserial primary key,
c2 text );
create table s2.t1(
c1 bigserial primary key
) inherits( s1
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 8:08:06 pm Carlos Mennens wrote:
> I've noticed when I set a field to char, it takes up lots of space over
> varchar:
>
> iamunix=# SELECT * FROM music;
> id | band| album |date|
> asin
I've noticed when I set a field to char, it takes up lots of space over varchar:
iamunix=# SELECT * FROM music;
id | band| album |date|
asin|label
+---+--+---
> From: chester c young
> Subject: Re: [SQL] pg_dump not correctly saving schema with partitioned
> tables?
> To: "Tom Lane"
> Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2012, 5:40 PM
> --- On Tue, 1/31/12, Tom Lane
> wrote:
>
> > From: Tom Lane
> > Subject: Re: [SQL] pg_dump not correctly saving schema
> wi
Yeah, that's what I did. No more group by, the MAX is in a subquery. One of
the reasons I hate coming behind someone else and updating their stuff is
that too many people try to get cute with the code. I try to make everything
as plain and simple as possible unless performance issues require otherw
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Edward W. Rouse wrote:
> NM, I figured it out. The mere presence of an aggregate function and/or
> the group by clause is what’s causing all the hate for me. I will take a
> whack at getting this to work without them. Thanks all.
>
All columns that are not in an a
NM, I figured it out. The mere presence of an aggregate function and/or the
group by clause is what's causing all the hate for me. I will take a whack
at getting this to work without them. Thanks all.
From: pgsql-sql-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-sql-ow...@postgresql.org]
On Behalf Of Edwa
I would love to remove most of the aggregate functions. I am trying to
update an existing query to provide better data and started with the
existing one (which is where the MAX for the names came from). I originally
tried to remove those, but I get the group by/aggregate function error if I
do. I g
chester c young writes:
> have database with many partitions. each partition table has its own primary
> key sequence.
>Column || Modifiers
> ---++--
> uno_id|| not n
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Edward W. Rouse wrote:
> And in most cases this works fine. The problem arises when invoices get
> added to the exception table due to their not being an invoice number. Even
> though we join on the tracking id, the group by on invoicenum lumps the
> different bla
-Original Message-
From: pgsql-sql-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-sql-ow...@postgresql.org]
On Behalf Of Edward W. Rouse
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 3:27 PM
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: [SQL] must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be used in an aggregate
function problem
At
Attempting to get a list of items that we want to be grouped by id and date,
with a detail column.
Table a is a typical user table; id, first and last name are all that I am
using
Table b is a tracking table, combining data from 8+ tables into one for ease
of use for reporting purposes; id, useri
have database with many partitions. each partition table has its own primary
key sequence.
Column || Modifiers
---++--
uno_id|| not null default nextval('cmp0004.cmt_u
13 matches
Mail list logo
