Hi, Tom,
Tom Lane wrote:
> If film_id is a primary key for film, then it's actually legal per SQL99
> (though not in earlier SQL specs) to just GROUP BY film_id and then
> reference the other columns of film without explicit grouping, because
> clearly there can be only one value of them per film
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Walter Cruz wrote:
> Hi all. I'm with a little doubt.
>
> I'm testing the pagila (the postgres port of mysql sakila sample).
>
> Well, I was trying to translate the query:
>
> select
> film.film_id AS FID,
> film.title AS title,
> film.description AS description
Thank you all.I found myself with the same trouble in last week, when I tried to port mambo CMS to PostgreSQL.After some work, In fall i a query like the one that was quoted by Andrew and decided to stop.
In that time, my guess wae that something was wrong with MySQL.(I don't know.. I have seen que
> So I can assume that the MySQL implementation is strange? (It accepts
> that kind of query)
Yes, MySQL behaves strangely in this case (as well as in several other
cases). I wouldn't rely on this as it probably can choose different
values each time (although as far as I remember I haven't seen th
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:26:39PM -0300, Walter Cruz wrote:
>> So I can assume that the MySQL implementation is strange? (It accepts that
>> kind of query)
> In my experience, it is almost never safe to assume that the MySQL
> approach to SQL bears an
On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 12:26, Walter Cruz wrote:
> So I can assume that the MySQL implementation is strange? (It accepts
> that kind of query)
Yes, according to the SQL spec, you should generally get an error when
you run a query like this:
select field1, field2 from table group by field1
since y
> But, when I add another column on select, like, film_description, I get
> the following error:
>
> "ERROR: column "film.description" must appear in the GROUP BY clause or
> be used in an aggregate function"
>
> If I put that column on GROUP BY everything works ok. But I want
> understant why d
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:26:39PM -0300, Walter Cruz wrote:
> So I can assume that the MySQL implementation is strange? (It accepts that
> kind of query)
In my experience, it is almost never safe to assume that the MySQL
approach to SQL bears anything but a passing resemblance to SQL
proper. Thi
So I can assume that the MySQL implementation is strange? (It accepts that kind of query)[]'s- WalterOn 9/1/06, Andrew Sullivan <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 10:31:48AM -0300, Walter Cruz wrote:
> "ERROR: column "film.description" must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be> used
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 10:31:48AM -0300, Walter Cruz wrote:
> "ERROR: column "film.description" must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be
> used in an aggregate function"
>
> If I put that column on GROUP BY everything works ok. But I want understant
> why do I need to do that. Can someone teach
Hi all. I'm with a little doubt.I'm testing the pagila (the postgres port of mysql sakila sample).Well, I was trying to translate the query:select film.film_id AS FID, film.title
AS title, film.description AS description, category.name AS category, film.rental_rate AS price,
11 matches
Mail list logo
