On 22/07/10 07:37, Wes Devauld wrote:
I have PostgreSQL 8.3.9 [PostgreSQL 8.3.9 on i386-apple-darwin10.3.0,
compiled by GCC i686-apple-darwin10-gcc-4.2.1 (GCC) 4.2.1 (Apple Inc.
build 5646) (dot 1)]
and the custom first and last aggregates from:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/First_(aggregate)
Hi,
having a table similar to
| 1 | B | [2010-07-15 Do] |
| 1 | B | [2010-07-16 Fr] |
|---+---+-|
| 2 | C | [2010-07-17 Sa] |
| 2 | C | [2010-07-18 So] |
|---+---+-|
| 1 | B | [2010-07-19 Mo] |
| 1 | B | [2010-07-20 Di] |
| 1 | B | [2010-07-21 Mi] |
| 1 | B | [2010
In response to Rainer Stengele :
> Hi,
>
> having a table similar to
>
> | 1 | B | [2010-07-15 Do] |
> | 1 | B | [2010-07-16 Fr] |
> |---+---+-|
> | 2 | C | [2010-07-17 Sa] |
> | 2 | C | [2010-07-18 So] |
> |---+---+-|
> | 1 | B | [2010-07-19 Mo] |
> | 1 | B | [201
On 22/07/10 11:02, A. Kretschmer wrote:
In response to Rainer Stengele :
What I want to get is the values grouped by "subset", where a subset is a set
of rows with identical column until the colum changes.
Is there a way to get
| 2 | B |
| 4 | C |
| 4 | B |
| 3 | D |
by SQL only?
I think, t
Richard Huxton wrote:
>>> What I want to get is the values grouped by "subset", where a subset is a
>>> set of rows with identical column until the colum changes.
>>> Is there a way to get
>>> | 2 | B |
>>> | 4 | C |
>>> | 4 | B |
>>> | 3 | D |
>>> by SQL only?
>> I think, the problem is that
Howdy, Rainer.
Please advice me,
The dates always follow that sequential pattern?
Or can be holes on the dates sequence?
Best,
Oliveiros
- Original Message -
From: "Rainer Stengele"
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 9:09 AM
Subject: [SQL] grouping subsets
Hi,
having a table si
Hi Oliveiros,
yes, the date is always incremented - but anyway the date column is not really
the point!
Actually the first tow columns are relevant.
I want them gouped together as indicated, adding up column 1 in the blocks with
identical second column, but not adding up over all the rows.
Hop
Rainer Stengele wrote:
> yes, the date is always incremented - but anyway the date
> column is not really the point! Actually the first tow
> columns are relevant. I want them gouped together as
> indicated, adding up column 1 in the blocks with identical
> second column, but not adding up over a
I believe I lost the flavour of what I'm doing when I constructed this
example. I'm not interested in the timepoint as much as the value that is
attached to it. I need to be able to find the last chronological record for
a given day.
I can get the value for which I am looking in two steps:
sele
Wes Devauld wrote:
> I believe I lost the flavour of what I'm doing when I constructed this
> example. I'm not interested in the timepoint as much as the value that is
> attached to it. I need to be able to find the last chronological record for
> a given day.
> I can get the value for which I
On 22/07/10 16:50, Wes Devauld wrote:
I was searching for a way to keep using last() and keeping the extraction to
a single step, although the more I fight with it, the less I think that it
is worth it. If you have any further suggestions, I would appreciate
hearing them.
You can certainly do
11 matches
Mail list logo
