I would say that pg_catalog is the more complete one whereas the
information_schema the more generic, standards-conformant place. I would
stick with the information_schema unless that becomes inadequate. A case
in point may be sequences. Apart from
information_schema.columns.column_default I haven'
Suppose we have the usual order & order line item entities:
CREATE TABLE "order" (
id INT PRIMARY KEY,
date DATE NOT NULL
);
CREATE TABLE orderlineitem (
id INT PRIMARY KEY,
orderid INT REFERENCES "order"(id),
seq INT NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT con1 UNIQUE (orderid, seq),
produc
Is it possible to use only CHECK constraint (and not triggers) to
completely enforce ordered value of a column (colx) in a table? By that
I mean:
1. Rows must be inserted in the order of colx=1, then colx=2, 3, and so on;
2. When deleting (or updating), "holes" must not be formed, e.g. if
there a
Thanks, George. What you say fits with what I was finding. I think that's
the way I will go.
~ Ken
> -Original Message-
> From: George Pavlov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 12:11 PM
> To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: The I
The following looks like a bug to me, but please someone review and tell
me what I might be missing. Seems that past a certain result set size a
"[NOT] IN (subquery)" stops behaving as expected and returns 0 matches
even when there should be matches. No errors are returned, just faulty
data. The ex
"George Pavlov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> select count(*) from t2 where t2.name not in (
> select t1.name from t1 limit 261683)
> --> 13
> select count(*) from t2 where t2.name not in (
> select t1.name from t1 limit 261684)
> --> 0
> What is so magical about 261683?
Most likely, the 26
At a glance I would guess that NULL values in one or both of your tables
is the culprit. NULL values always return false.
Example:
A quick test on my database:
select count(*) FROM tbl_employee;
count
---
2689
select count(*) FROM tbl_employee WHERE username IS NULL;
count
---
3
Yes, yes, of course... There are nulls in my t1 table. And, of course,
NOT IN can return THREE possible values: not just TRUE or FALSE but also
NULL...
select distinct (moo.goo not in (null)) from moo;
--> null
select count(*) from moo where moo.goo not in ('gai', 'pan', null)
--> 0, no matter wh
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 02:44:51PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "George Pavlov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > select count(*) from t2 where t2.name not in (
> > select t1.name from t1 limit 261683)
> > --> 13
> > select count(*) from t2 where t2.name not in (
> > select t1.name from t1 limit 261
elein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In 8.0 we get:
>elein=# select 1 in (NULL, 1, 2);
> ?column?
>--
> t
>(1 row)
>elein=# select 3 not in (NULL, 1, 2);
> ?column?
>--
>(1 row)
> For consistency, either both should return NULL or
> both
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 07:25:40PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> elein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In 8.0 we get:
>
> >elein=# select 1 in (NULL, 1, 2);
> > ?column?
> >--
> > t
> >(1 row)
>
> >elein=# select 3 not in (NULL, 1, 2);
> > ?column?
> >---
11 matches
Mail list logo
