gres=> RESET ROLE;
RESET
postgres=# DROP TABLE lock_tbl6;
DROP TABLE
postgres=# DROP TABLE lock_tbl5;
DROP TABLE
postgres=# REVOKE ALL ON SCHEMA lock_schema1 FROM lock_rol5;
REVOKE
postgres=# DROP ROLE lock_rol5 ;
DROP ROLE
postgres=#
Thanks
--
Robins Tharakan
N
centre_distance := ' and (centredistance<=' + centre_distance + ' or ' +
centre_distance + '=1) '
|| ' order by chr_u, start_u';
--exec sql;
end if;
END;
$BODY$
language plpgsql;
*
Hi,
Probably you're looking for these set of articles.
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Converting_from_other_Databases_to_PostgreSQL#Microsoft_SQL_Server
The second article (by Ethan) has good small hints for things such as
the query that you ask in this thread, when migrating from MSSQL to
P
Hi,
What all have you tried?
What are you getting stuck at?
Let us see some samples and may be someone could provide some input.
--
Robins
On 03/26/2012 01:19 PM, Rehan Saleem wrote:
hi,
i am trying to convert this mssql store procedure to postgresql function
but it is not giving me the desire
for GROUP BY)
--
Robins Tharakan
On 11/08/2011 03:29 PM, Tarlika Elisabeth Schmitz wrote:
Thank you for yuor suggestion, Robins. Unfortunately, it does not work;
this returns:
1787"Toomyvara" 0.5
1787"Toomevara" 0.4
1188"Toonybara" 0.4
because
Unless I overlooked something here, does this work ?
SELECT no, name, MAX(similarity(name, 'Tooneyvara')) AS sim
FROM vtown
WHERE similarity(name, 'Tooneyvara') > 0.4
GROUP BY no, name
ORDER BY sim DESC
--
Robins Tharakan
On 11/08/2011 02:50 AM, Tarlika Elisabeth Sc
ue only for a direct
join. In the second query, the optimizer recommends a table scan even for a
simple IN() condition.
Is that normal ?
Regards,
*Robins Tharakan*
Query 1:
SELECT n1.scheme_code
FROM nav n1
INNER JOIN nav n2 ON n1.scheme_code = n2.scheme_code
WHERE n1.scheme_code = 290
&quo
n1) and this makes a whole lot of difference in performance (since it now
uses the same index for n2 that it is using for n1).
In case of an INNER JOIN, shouldn't the second condition (in Query2) be
unnecessary ?
Or am I being unreasonable in this expectation ?
Regards,
*Robins Tharakan*
Probably you are looking for EXCEPT.
SELECT * FROM Tbl1 WHERE a=1
EXCEPT
SELECT * FROM tbl2 WHERE a=1 and b=1;
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/interactive/sql-select.html
Regards,
*Robins Tharakan*
-- Forwarded message --
From: Nacef LABIDI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Th
Oops!
Of course, I meant a sequence.
*Robins*
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Harald Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Robins Tharakan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > While we could always check for the query p
While we could always check for the query performance reasons, I rather
think that this is an overkill for the purpose of mere line numbers.
If such queries don't change frequently, you could be better off using a
simple function that instead adds a 'rownumber' field to the output of the
inner SQL
Hi Chad,
(Pardon me if I am shooting the stars here...)
Don't you think that on each update, you would be creating a new row that
satisfies that very given condition for the view ?
By that I mean that when you do a 'UPDATE... WHERE my_table_id=1' the RULE
now inserts another row with my_table_id
>
> What version of PostGreSQL are you using ?
> Are you sure there was no typing error ? This SQL should work in the most
> recent version of PG.( at least version 8.1 onwards)
>
> *Robins*
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Jyoti Seth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > I have tried this, but
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/functions-comparison.html
This document states this:
Lets assume:
A = NULL
B = 10
C = NULL
SELECT 1 WHERE A = B returns no rows
SELECT 1 WHERE A = C returns no rows (even though both A and C are NULL)
SELECT 1 WHERE A IS NOT DISTINCT FROM C returns 1
>
> Hi,
>
> When you pass non-null values in p_statecd the result should work fine,
> but when you pass NULL in p_statecd ... the equal operator stops to work as
> you as expect it to.
>
> Please see this documentation:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/functions-comparison.html
> fr
Hi,
I know this kind of a question is asked earlier, but I couldn't find an
answer there (in the previous round of posting).
Instead of wanting to update the first record in an UPDATE .. ORDER BY
condition, (because of triggers that act downward) what I want is that all
records be updated, but in
> It can be done, but it depends on how you are generating the value in the
> first function.
> If you sequences though you may have to take care of reverting it
> yourself.
>
> *Robins*
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Jyoti Seth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Feb 6, 2008 11:51 A
Hi,
I am not sure if this'd help :
1. Are you sure that the sequence and the tablename have the same name ?
[The insert statement is seeing the insert target identifier as a variable]
2. In case you need to run the [INSERT INTO '|| TG_TABLE_NAME ||' SELECT
NEW.* ] statement you could always use
Please correct me if I am wrong, but as the last few lines of the first
section in the given document says, you can use $n only for values and not
for identifiers.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/xfunc-sql.html
And one more thing, may be you would want to use a user-defined return type
Forgive my butting in, but frankly, most of the times, whenever I find
myself in a very 'exceptional problem' such as this one, I always end up
questioning the basic design due to which I am stuck in the first place.
Paul, it seems that probably there is a basic design issue here.
All the best :)
20 matches
Mail list logo
