Title: RE: [SQL] List Concatination [warning]
A word of warning for the newbies...
*Don't* create a function called textcat. You *will* be sorry. There's
already a textcat builtin and you kinda need it for || and whatnot.
(Yes, I found out the hard way...)
There might be a bet
"Josh Berkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As I said in my previous e-mail, I appear to have gotten the list to
> order itself by basing it on an (ordered) sub-select. Since the DB is
> only 50% populated right now, I'm not sure that's working perfectly but
> I'll keep you posted.
Yes, that oug
Tom,
> Yes, that oughta work fine to determine the order of inputs to the
> aggregate function. ORDER BY in sub-selects is a new feature (heck,
> sub-selects in FROM at all is a new feature) in 7.1, so this trick
> wasn't available when Richard and I discussed the issue before.
Hey, why do you
Richard,
> Sorry - issue was to do with the ordering of the concatenation, not
> the
> user-defined aggregates (iirc - it's getting late here).
>
> I do remember I got different orders when selecting and updating. In
> my
> case it didn't matter, and I'm guessing if the order reverses in your
On 3/15/01, 5:02:37 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re:
[SQL] List Concatination :
> Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Note that this is probably not a good idea - the ordering of the
> >> contacts will not be well-defined. Whe
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Note that this is probably not a good idea - the ordering of the
>> contacts will not be well-defined. When I asked about this Tom Lane was
>> quite surprised that it worked, so no guarantees about long-term
>> suitability.
> Hmmm ... this feature is ver
Richard,
I wanted to thank you for the concatination suggestion ... on testing,
a custom aggregate *was* faster than procedural concatination ... much
faster.
> But - if you don't care about the order of contacts you can define an
> aggregate function:
>
> create aggregate catenate(sfun
Tom, Richard,
Thanks for the advice, guys! This being Postgres, I *knew* there would
be other options.
> > create aggregate catenate(sfunc1=textcat, basetype=text,
> stype1=text, initcond1='');
>
> > Then group by client and catenate(firstname || ' ' || lastname)
>
> With a custom agg
Richard Huxton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But - if you don't care about the order of contacts you can define an
> aggregate function:
> create aggregate catenate(sfunc1=textcat, basetype=text, stype1=text, initcond1='');
> Then group by client and catenate(firstname || ' ' || lastname)
With
Josh Berkus wrote:
> I have an interesting problem. For purpose of presentation to users,
> I'd like to concatinate a list of VARCHAR values from a subtable. To
> simplify my actual situation:
>
> What I'd like to be able to do is present a list of clients and their
> comma-seperated co
Folks,
I have an interesting problem. For purpose of presentation to users,
I'd like to concatinate a list of VARCHAR values from a subtable. To
simplify my actual situation:
CREATE TABLE clients (
client_id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
client_name VARCHAR(50) );
CREATE TABLE c
11 matches
Mail list logo
