lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 4:00 PM
Subject: [SQL] Order by YYYY MM DD in reverse chrono order trouble
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to select distinct dates and order them in the reverse
> chronological order. Although the column type is TIMESTAMP, in this
> cas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> I am trying to select distinct dates and order them in the reverse
> chronological order. Although the column type is TIMESTAMP, in this
> case I want only , MM, and DD back.
If you don't need them separated (which I suspect may be the cas
Hello,
Thank you for all your help, Stijn.
date_part is a standard PG function.
While not the most elegant, the DESC, DESC, DESC solution suggested the
other day works okay for me, so I think I'll use that for now.
Thanks again!
Otis
--- Stijn Vanroye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, it seem
Indeed, it seems that I get the same result for a similar query.
I'm running version 7.3.4 on a rh 9 server.
Also: is the function date_part a function you wrote yourself? I get an error stating
that the function date_part("Unknown",date) is not recognized.
It maybe not a solution to the actual
Hello,
Hm, doesn't work for me:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mydb=> select distinct date_part('year', uu.add_date),
date_part('month', uu.add_date), date_part('day',
uu.add_date) from uus inner join ui on uus.user_id=ui.id inner join
uu on ui.id=uu.user_id where uus.subscriber_user_id=1 order by
uu.a
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd love to be able to do that, but I cannot just ORDER BY uu.add_date,
> because I do not have uu.add_date in the SELECT part of the statement.
Sure you can. Back around SQL89 there was a restriction that ORDER BY
values had to appear in the SELECT list as well, bu
Yes indeed, I seem to have misinterpreted that last one. My apologies.
The distinct solution I mentioned isn't going to solve it, you are absolutely right in
your example.
To get back on track:
You don't have to use a field in the select part of you query to be able to use it in
the order by cla
Hello,
I'd love to be able to do that, but I cannot just ORDER BY uu.add_date,
because I do not have uu.add_date in the SELECT part of the statement.
The reason I don't have it there is because I need distinct MM DD
values back.
Is there a trick that I could use to make this more elegant?
T
Is there some reason you can't do this:
SELECT DISTINCT
date_part('year', uu.add_date), date_part('month', uu.add_date),
date_part('day', uu.add_date)
FROM uus INNER JOIN ui ON uus.user_id=ui.id INNER JOIN uu ON
ui.id=uu.user_id
WHERE uus.x_id=1
ORDER BY
uu.add_date DESC;
This might be
Thank you and Denis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - that was it. I needed
explicit DESC for each ORDER BY criterium.
Otis
--- Stijn Vanroye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am trying to select distinct dates and order them in the reverse
> > chronological order. Although the column type i
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to select distinct dates and order them in the reverse
> chronological order. Although the column type is TIMESTAMP, in this
> case I want only , MM, and DD back.
>
> I am using the following query, but it's not returning dates back in
> the reverse chronological ord
Hello,
I am trying to select distinct dates and order them in the reverse
chronological order. Although the column type is TIMESTAMP, in this
case I want only , MM, and DD back.
I am using the following query, but it's not returning dates back in
the reverse chronological order:
SELECT DIST
12 matches
Mail list logo
