Hi,
| You probably don't want to do that. The DESC only applies to the
| one expression it follows. What you want is probably:
| explain select datetime,id from trafficlogs order by
| datetime desc,id desc limit 20;
This is exactly what I was after - worked a treat!
Thanks.
Darren
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 22:18:08 +1000,
email lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Limit (cost=0.00..2.31 rows=20 width=12)
- Index Scan using idx_trafficlogs_datetime_id on trafficlogs
(cost=0.00..1057.89 rows=9172 width=12)
(2 rows)
however, I am wanting to return the last 20 records. I
O kyrios Bruno Wolff III egrapse stis Jan 29, 2004 :
As i see there was a thread
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-05/msg00762.php
dealing with this issue, assuming the correct order by
should be order by datetime ASC, id DESC.
Do you know of any progress for declaring the
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 15:29:11 +0200,
Achilleus Mantzios [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
O kyrios Bruno Wolff III egrapse stis Jan 29, 2004 :
As i see there was a thread
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-05/msg00762.php
dealing with this issue, assuming the correct order by
O kyrios Bruno Wolff III egrapse stis Jan 29, 2004 :
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 15:29:11 +0200,
Achilleus Mantzios [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
O kyrios Bruno Wolff III egrapse stis Jan 29, 2004 :
As i see there was a thread
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-05/msg00762.php
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 15:29:11 +0200,
Achilleus Mantzios [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
O kyrios Bruno Wolff III egrapse stis Jan 29, 2004 :
As i see there was a thread
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-05/msg00762.php
dealing
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd thought that I'd previously sent a message containing a set of
definitions for the reverse opclasses (not meant for inclusion to the
system because I was making SQL functions that basically did -normal
comparison function to use as the function of
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd thought that I'd previously sent a message containing a set of
definitions for the reverse opclasses (not meant for inclusion to the
system because I was making SQL functions that basically did -normal
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah, that's what I figured. I thought it might be useful for people to
play with though since at least for the integer/float types writing C
versions of the comparitors is easy. I was thinking for real it'd be nice
to be able to use the normal
