if you use a restriction clause like WHERE n_issue = i.id in
that. It will certainly lower the number of rows returned by it to only 1
result.
Regards
--
Helio Campos Mello de Andrade
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Sebastian Ritter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I was hoping
Cheers for you help guys. Having filtered and then joined has substantially
reduced the run time.
Much obliged,
Sebastian
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Richard Huxton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sebastian Ritter wrote:
Could it have something
to do with the fact that it is a subquery
Hi all,
I was hoping to receive some advise on a slow running query in our business'
Issue Tracking System. To shed some light on the below mentioned queries,
here is a brief summary of how users interact with the system. The two main
components in the system are a Issues and Followups. An Issue
Cheers for this Richard. The more I think about it, I believe the join is
being made against ALL issues and followups first and then filtered by my
where clause conditions afterwards. This would in incur a scan against all
15,000 issues and 95,000 followups. Set theory tells me that I should not
Hi all,
I have a question regarding functions. How can I return zero rows from a
function whose return type is a table row? I did the following test and it
did not work as expected:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
fn_get_user (integer) RETURNS usertable AS '
DECLARE
in_userid
Hello,
I have a fairly basic question about database design where im not sure
which approach is considered correct.
I have two different entities: Clients and Services. Both allow users to
add progressive updates about the two entities.
The update/message format is exactly the same for
? In terms of
searching speed that is.
Kindest regards.
Sebastian
On 8/28/07, Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:47:45PM +0100, Sebastian Ritter wrote:
The update/message format is exactly the same for both. Should I make
two
different tables:
one table
between client_ids and service_ids.
Cheers,
Sebastian
On 8/28/07, Erik Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 28, 2007, at 6:47 AM, Sebastian Ritter wrote:
Hello,
I have a fairly basic question about database design where im not
sure which approach is considered correct.
I have two
Hi,
On 8/28/07, Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:37:22PM +0100, Sebastian Ritter wrote:
Thanks for the information.
Both tables would be exactly sames apart from the foreign key relation
to
clients or services.
Hmm. Are the services or clients
Thanks guys,
Sebastian
On 8/28/07, Bart Degryse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
quoteIm using Django as my Object relational Mapper so im pretty sure I
can not add a constraint such as .../quote
Then you should seriously consider changing your mapper.
Sebastian Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08
ON (cities.id = x.city_id)
I think that would work.
Seb
On 8/28/07, Sebastian Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi There,
You can do something like :
SELECT * FROM cities c LEFT OUTER JOIN events e ON (c.id =e.city_id) ORDER
BY e.date DESC LIMIT 2
The left outer join here would ensure
11 matches
Mail list logo
