On Jun 6, 2006, at 12:32 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:20:13AM -0700, codeWarrior wrote:
I would hope that your choice to use postgreSQL is because it is
superior
technology that scales well financially... not because you get a
warm fuzzy
from all your friends on the
Don't forget that support is a very important part of making a decision about whether to or not to use a technology. Having people who are happy to read and respond to any question is part of great support for the product.
And I am glad to see that most people on this list agree with me on the imp
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:20:13AM -0700, codeWarrior wrote:
> I would hope that your choice to use postgreSQL is because it is superior
> technology that scales well financially... not because you get a warm fuzzy
> from all your friends on the mailing lists...
I would hope that the tone of the
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 08:30:54AM -0700, Richard Broersma Jr wrote:
>
> However, if questions like these are *really* off-topic for the
> pgsql-sql I would be interested in knowing what kind of threads are
> acceptable and on-topic for this list.
They're not off-topic. The point of the list is
On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 10:30, Richard Broersma Jr wrote:
> > Personally: I think your posts are getting annoying. This isn't SQLCentral.
> > Learn to write your own damn queries or even better - buy a book on SQL...
>
> Personally: (being a newbie with an interest in developing a strong rdms
> sk
I would hope that your choice to use postgreSQL is because it is superior
technology that scales well financially... not because you get a warm fuzzy
from all your friends on the mailing lists...
"Oisin Glynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Richard Broersma Jr wr
Richard Broersma Jr wrote:
Personally: I think your posts are getting annoying. This isn't SQLCentral.
Learn to write your own damn queries or even better - buy a book on SQL...
Personally: (being a newbie with an interest in developing a strong rdms
skillset) I've enjoyed
following threa
> Personally: I think your posts are getting annoying. This isn't SQLCentral.
> Learn to write your own damn queries or even better - buy a book on SQL...
Personally: (being a newbie with an interest in developing a strong rdms
skillset) I've enjoyed
following threads like these. Even when the q
Personally: I think your posts are getting annoying. This isn't SQLCentral.
Learn to write your own damn queries or even better - buy a book on SQL...
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> hi all, i posted this problem on the novice thread,
> but it makes much more sense
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 10:09:01AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Michael, my derivative of your query example works
> great - thank you!
>
> i think i understand everything except why multiplying
> by 1.0 is necessary. when i take it out, my expected
> result, 0.500..., turns into 0 -
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 04:09:21PM -0700,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > what i can't seem to do is to get both - a count
> of
> > the total number of t_inspect_result.inspect_pass
> > where the value is true and a total count, by
> unique
> > t_inspect.id.
>
> Are you looking for something like
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 04:09:21PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> what i can't seem to do is to get both - a count of
> the total number of t_inspect_result.inspect_pass
> where the value is true and a total count, by unique
> t_inspect.id.
Are you looking for something like this?
SELECT 1.0 *
12 matches
Mail list logo
