On 10/23/2018 03:13 AM, Peter Ďurica wrote:
Table with sample data:
*create table t(a int, b int);*
*insert into t values(1,11);*
*insert into t values(2,12);*
now query using any window function (row_number, rank, ) after UNION or
UNION ALL will cause sqlite.exe crash (no regular error)
fo
On Monday, 22 October, 2018 14:13, Peter Ďurica wrote:
>Table with sample data:
>*create table t(a int, b int);*
>*insert into t values(1,11);*
>*insert into t values(2,12);*
...
What is up with the asterisks, they make copying VERY VERY VERY VERY difficult.
If you want to put "stars" around
I dug a little more into this with a debug build; was able to get the
same crash trace with the slightly smaller query
CREATE TABLE t(a);
SELECT 1, 1
UNION ALL
SELECT a, RANK() OVER (ORDER BY a) FROM t;
which fails the pTab!=0 assertion in sqlite3ColumnsFromExprList.
It seems lik
Table with sample data:
*create table t(a int, b int);*
*insert into t values(1,11);*
*insert into t values(2,12);*
now query using any window function (row_number, rank, ) after UNION or
UNION ALL will cause sqlite.exe crash (no regular error)
for example:
*select a, rank() over(order by b)
I find a bug that exists in `UNION ALL`.
tldr: `UNION ALL` will not merge the data in different schemas in the moment
that one of schema is committed but the another not. BUT, `UNION` will.
Here are the reproduce steps:
Preparation:
1. Prepare a database named "OLD"
1.1 Create a table for "O
I find a bug that exists in `UNION ALL`.
tldr: `UNION ALL` will not merge the data in different schemas in the moment
that one of schema is committed but the another not. BUT, `UNION` will.
Here are the reproduce steps:
Preparation:
1. Prepare a database named "OLD"
1.1 Create a table for "O
Thanks, Don.
-Original Message-
From: don v nielsen
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 3:21 PM
To: SQLite mailing list
Subject: Re: [sqlite] UNION
Might I suggest: https://www.w3schools.com/sql/
dvn
On 03/01/2017 09:02 AM, jose isaias cabrera wrote:
Ryan,
I just want to thank you for
Might I suggest: https://www.w3schools.com/sql/
dvn
On 03/01/2017 09:02 AM, jose isaias cabrera wrote:
Ryan,
I just want to thank you for your kindness and display of goodwill to
mankind. This is a great response. I even learned something from this
post. Thanks so much for your responses.
Ryan,
I just want to thank you for your kindness and display of goodwill to
mankind. This is a great response. I even learned something from this
post. Thanks so much for your responses. There are others like us in
this group that love to learn and your posts always are well received.
Thanks
On 2017/03/01 3:40 AM, do...@mail.com wrote:
# SELECT * FROM processors UNION SELECT * FROM storage;
Error: SELECTs to the left and right do not have the same number of
result columns.
All tables that I created in my database have differing column names,
values, and amounts of columns with the
users-boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org] Im
Auftrag von do...@mail.com
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 01. März 2017 02:40
An: sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
Betreff: [sqlite] UNION
# SELECT * FROM processors UNION SELECT * FROM storage;
Error: SELECTs to the left and right do not have the same number of resul
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 5:40 PM, wrote:
> # SELECT * FROM processors UNION SELECT * FROM storage;
> Error: SELECTs to the left and right do not have the same number of
> result columns.
>
> All tables that I created in my database have differing column names,
> values, and amounts of columns with
The error says it. You need to have the same number of columns/fields.
For example, this would throw an error if processors had 3 fields and
storage had 4. I don't think the names of the fields are important, as
it'll use whatever is defined in the first SELECT.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 8:40 PM,
# SELECT * FROM processors UNION SELECT * FROM storage;
Error: SELECTs to the left and right do not have the same number of
result columns.
All tables that I created in my database have differing column names,
values, and amounts of columns with the noted exception of the one
column which is commo
Definitely a bug: I distilled the OP's code into an easy repeatable test
case -
---
create table t(id integer primary key autoincrement, a, b, c);
insert into t values
(3,1 ,'name','Imogen')
,(5,1 ,'gender' ,'female')
,(6,1 ,'son' ,'
On 2/8/16, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 2/8/16, Poor Yorick wrote:
>> The following query produces a third phantom record on my system:
>
> Running "PRAGMA automatic_index=OFF;" might alleviate the symptoms
> your are experiencing, until we can get a proper fix published.
>
The bug appears to be qui
On 2016-02-08 19:15, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 2/8/16, Richard Hipp wrote:
>> On 2/8/16, Poor Yorick wrote:
>>> The following query produces a third phantom record on my system:
>>
>> Running "PRAGMA automatic_index=OFF;" might alleviate the symptoms
>> your are experiencing, until we can get a p
On 2/8/16, Poor Yorick wrote:
> The following query produces a third phantom record on my system:
Running "PRAGMA automatic_index=OFF;" might alleviate the symptoms
your are experiencing, until we can get a proper fix published.
>
>
> = start script =
> package require sqlite3
>
> sqlite
On 2/8/16, R Smith wrote:
> Definitely a bug: I distilled the OP's code into an easy repeatable test
> case -
https://www.sqlite.org/src/tktview/d06a25c84454a372be4e4c970c3c4d4363197219
--
D. Richard Hipp
drh at sqlite.org
The following query produces a third phantom record on my system:
= start script =
package require sqlite3
sqlite3 [namespace current]::db :memory:
db eval {
create table if not exists eav (
id integer primary key autoincrement
,entity numeric
,attribute
Hello,
With the latest version of sqlite 3.8.5 and above we have notice some
of our existing queries are failing. We noticed this with the iOS 8.2
release.
The schema example we are using for our test case
CREATE TABLE Table2
(
id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
name TEXT
);
CREATE TABLE Table3
(
id INTE
Also, as far as I'm concerned, if the choice is "more optimizations in
SQLite3" or "more work on SQLite4", then put me down for the latter.
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@sqlite.org
http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> The reason for using a temp table for UNION ALL in a subquery is because
> that is the path of least resistance. [...]
For what it's worth, UNION ALL is generally understood to be a major
optimization over UNION because no temp table should
Thanks for running these tests. Clearly I should have made this change a
long time ago
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Eleytherios Stamatogiannakis <
est...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In my preliminary tests, the patch has worked wonderfully. In these first
> tests i have only tested plain SQLite
In my preliminary tests, the patch has worked wonderfully. In these
first tests i have only tested plain SQLite functionality (without
virtual table or additional functions) on a 1.5GB DB. Some remarks:
- It is lightning fast. For queries that fit to the free space (some of
them could not fini
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Eleytherios Stamatogiannakis <
est...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mr. Hipp please excuse my attitude on my first email
>
All is forgotten. Thank you for bringing this optimization opportunity to
our attention!
--
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
__
Hello,
Mr. Hipp please excuse my attitude on my first email (the one your
replied to). It came after 3 days of intense pressure to find out what
the problem of machines coming to a crawl whenever a particular query
with sufficiently large union-ed all tables was run.
Due to the quality of SQ
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Eleytherios Stamatogiannakis <
est...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have been observing the following freaky behaviour of SQLite. When i run:
>
> select count(*) from (select * from huge_table union all select * from
> huge_table);
>
> Sqlite starts writting in /var/tmp/ a
Sorry i didn't realize before that you had:
select * from (... union all ...)
Try with a count(*) as such:
select count(*) from (... union all ...)
And you'll see that both union and "union all" will create a temp file.
Union needs the temp file to remove the duplicates. Union All doesn't
ne
Eleytherios Stamatogiannakis wrote:
> My understanding (and what my experiments have shown) is that in both
> cases "COMPOUND SUBQUERIES 1 AND 2" will write a temp file to /var/tmp.
Okay, let's create a test database ...
$ strace -e trace=open sqlite3 test.db
[...]
sqlite> create table t(x)
My understanding (and what my experiments have shown) is that in both
cases "COMPOUND SUBQUERIES 1 AND 2" will write a temp file to /var/tmp.
IMHO, the documentation should warn about this writing behaviour,
because for the second case (union all) it isn't expected/predictable
because fully bu
Eleytherios Stamatogiannakis wrote:
> "union all" works exactly like plain "union". It always materializes its
> input.
sqlite> explain query plan select 1 union select 2;
sele order from deta
-
0 0 0 COMPOUND SUBQUERIES 1 AND 2 USING
n how
they are composed.)"
--/SNIP--
At least to my eyes, above says what i was expecting before realizing
what actually happens, that "union all" tries to not materialize its
results when possible.
What the truth is, concerning materialization, is that in SQLite "union
a
Eleytherios Stamatogiannakis wrote:
> Can a warning about "union all"'s behaviour of buffering everything in
> /var/tmp be added in SQLite's documentation?
Like this? http://www.sqlite.org/tempfiles.html
Regards,
Clemens
___
sqlite-users mailing list
Can a warning about "union all"'s behaviour of buffering everything in
/var/tmp be added in SQLite's documentation?
I think that such a warning could save a lot of time for other SQLite
users that trip over the same thing as i did.
Thank you,
lefteris.
__
Thank you Simon. Your solution would work for the example i gave.
Nevertheless my problem is still more complex because i also use SQLite
as a generic streaming engine (yes i know, SQLite wasn't designed for
doing things like that).
Appart from input VTs (FILE) we also have output VTs like so
On 26 Oct 2012, at 10:28pm, Elefterios Stamatogiannakis
wrote:
> create table t as
> select upper(c1), c2, lower(c3) from
> (
> select * from file('http://www.foo.com/list1.tsv.gz')
> union all
> select * from file('http://www.foo.com/list2.tsv.gz')
> )
> where c2!=c4;
Does this work instead ?
On 10/26/2012 5:28 PM, Elefterios Stamatogiannakis wrote:
The real query in madIS looks like the following:
create table t as
select upper(c1), c2, lower(c3) from
(
select * from file('http://www.foo.com/list1.tsv.gz')
union all
select * from file('http://www.foo.com/list2.tsv.gz')
)
where c2!=c
Thank you for answering Mr. Hipp. The general problem doesn't have to do
with counting the rows (it was there as a placeholder). I just want to
merge 2 (and more) table/streams.
The real query in madIS looks like the following:
create table t as
select upper(c1), c2, lower(c3) from
(
select *
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Eleytherios Stamatogiannakis <
est...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have been observing the following freaky behaviour of SQLite. When i run:
>
> select count(*) from (select * from huge_table union all select * from
> huge_table);
>
> Sqlite starts writting in /var/tmp/ a
I have been observing the following freaky behaviour of SQLite. When i run:
select count(*) from (select * from huge_table union all select * from
huge_table);
Sqlite starts writting in /var/tmp/ a file like:
/var/tmp/etilqs_gblRd6vUPcx91Hl, the root partition of fills up and an
error is ra
Clay Trychta wrote:
> SELECT * FROM(
> SELECT * FROM(
>SELECT k FROM test_table
> )
> UNION ALL
> SELECT * FROM(
>SELECT k, v FROM test_table
> )
> )
>
> I would think that unioning two selects which have a different number
> of columns would return an error. If I remove the outermos
I've run into a case where a sqlite query I'm expecting to return an
error is actually succeeding and I was wondering if anyone could point
out why this query is valid.
CREATE TABLE test_table(
k INTEGER,
v INTEGER
);
INSERT INTO test_table( k, v ) VALUES( 4, 5 );
SELECT * FROM(
SELECT * F
Gillman, David wrote:
> Is this expected behavior? (The failure of my query to return a row.)
Your query does not have a well-defined meaning, so no particular behavior is
expected from it.
--
Igor Tandetnik
___
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-user
Is this expected behavior? (The failure of my query to return a row.)
David
-Original Message-
From: Kit [mailto:kit.sa...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 5:24 AM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: Re: [sqlite] union-having bug
2011/12/3 Gillman, David
2011/12/3 Gillman, David :
> Is this behavior known? The third query returns no rows even though bar = 1.
> sqlite> select ind, sum(foo) foo, sum(bar) bar from (select 1 ind, 0 foo, 1
> bar union select 1 ind, 1 foo, 0 bar) group by ind having bar > 0;
select ind, sum(foo) fooo, sum(bar) barr fr
Gillman, David wrote:
> Is this behavior known? The third query returns no rows even though bar = 1.
>
> sqlite> select ind, sum(foo) foo, sum(bar) bar from (select 1 ind, 0 foo, 1
> bar union select 1 ind, 1 foo, 0 bar) group by ind
> having foo > 0;
> ind|foo|bar
> 1|1|1
> sqlite> select ind
from (select 1
ind, 0 foo, 1 bar union select 1 ind, 1 foo, 0 bar) group by ind) where bar > 0;
ind|foo|bar
1|1|1
sqlite>
-Original Message-
From: Gillman, David [mailto:dgill...@akamai.com]
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 6:37 PM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: [sqlite] u
Hi,
Is this behavior known? The third query returns no rows even though bar = 1.
sqlite> select region, sum(edge) edge, sum(infra) infra from (select 1 region,
0 edge, 1 infra union select 1 region, 1 edge, 0 infra) group by
region;region|edge|infra
1|1|1
sqlite> select ind, sum(foo) foo, sum(
On 24 November 2010 11:08, Swithun Crowe wrote:
> Hello
>
> BS> Thanks, I tried that and it gives no error, but only gives the first
> BS> lot, not the bit after the union all.
>
> Ah. I hadn't tried with data. I don't know why the LIMIT affects the UNION
> ALL, when it is buried in a subquery.
I
Thanks, that one works indeed and will use that.
RBS
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Swithun Crowe
wrote:
> Hello
>
> BS> Thanks, I tried that and it gives no error, but only gives the first
> BS> lot, not the bit after the union all.
>
> Ah. I hadn't tried with data. I don't know why the LIM
Hello
BS> Thanks, I tried that and it gives no error, but only gives the first
BS> lot, not the bit after the union all.
Ah. I hadn't tried with data. I don't know why the LIMIT affects the UNION
ALL, when it is buried in a subquery. It doesn't affect a UNION (no ALL).
In your real data and qu
Thanks, I tried that and it gives no error, but only gives the first
lot, not the bit after the union all.
RBS
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Swithun Crowe
wrote:
> Hello
>
> BS> select
> BS> patient_id
> BS> from
> BS> table1
> BS> where
> BS> age = 50
> BS> limit 6
> BS> union all
> BS> se
Hello
BS> select
BS> patient_id
BS> from
BS> table1
BS> where
BS> age = 50
BS> limit 6
BS> union all
BS> select
BS> patient_id
BS> from
BS> table1
BS> where
BS> age = 60
BS> limit 4
You might want to wrap the two selects with limits inside subqueries:
select patientID
from (
select patientID
Trying to run this SQL:
select
patient_id
from
table1
where
age = 50
limit 6
union all
select
patient_id
from
table1
where
age = 60
limit 4
But it fails due to the limit clause before the union.
Would there be a way round this?
RBS
___
sqlite-users ma
Two possible solutions:
A) pure sql ... (warning: untested) Start with all the possible col1
values, and then left join to the other tables, and pick the first
col2 found.
select col1,
coalesce( A.col2, B.col2, C.col2 ) as col2
from (
select distinct col1 from (
select col1 from A
un
Hi,
I'm hoping someone here can help me out with a query. I have multiple
tables, each with the same schema. For example:
=
Table A:
=
1|"xxx"
2|"yyy"
3|"zzz"
=
=
Table B:
=
1|"xxx222"
3|"zzz222"
5|"www"
=
I'd like a SELECT statement that yields
Anybody that is way better than me please help.
For the life of me I can not get this to work.
select * from (
select * from table1 where Field2='Red' order by Field1 limit 1
union all
select * from table1 where Field2='White' and
Field1 < (select Field1 from table1 where Field2='Red' order b
"TW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I have this query:
>
> SELECT title, artist, hd, bank, bookmark, genre, class, classnumber
> FROM music
> WHERE classnumber=6 OR classnumber=7
> AND hd="B"
> UNION
> SELECT title, artist, hd, bank, bookmark, genre, class, classnumbe
Hi,
I have this query:
SELECT title, artist, hd, bank, bookmark, genre, class, classnumber
FROM music
WHERE classnumber=6 OR classnumber=7
AND hd="B"
UNION
SELECT title, artist, hd, bank, bookmark, genre, class, classnumber
F
> Not in principle. But I think changes that break backwards
> compatibility would be more trouble than they're worth for
> something like this. In the absence of clearer guidance
> from sql-92, it's probably more important to be compatible
> with earlier sqlite versions than with mysql and friends
On Dec 5, 2007, at 1:24 AM, Joe Wilson wrote:
--- Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The "b" in the ORDER BY does not match "x1.b" because it is
not a simple identifier (according to matchOrderbyToColumn()).
It does not match either "" or " as ".
After failing to find a match for "b" in the left
--- Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The "b" in the ORDER BY does not match "x1.b" because it is
> not a simple identifier (according to matchOrderbyToColumn()).
> It does not match either "" or " as ".
>
> After failing to find a match for "b" in the leftmost SELECT,
> SQLite searches the next l
On Dec 4, 2007, at 10:35 PM, Joe Wilson wrote:
--- Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i.e., if we have:
CREATE TABLE x1(a, b, c);
CREATE TABLE x2(a, b, c);
then the following pairs of statements are equivalent:
...
SELECT x1.b, a FROM x1 UNION SELECT a, b FROM x2 ORDER BY b;
SELEC
--- Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i.e., if we have:
>
>CREATE TABLE x1(a, b, c);
>CREATE TABLE x2(a, b, c);
>
> then the following pairs of statements are equivalent:
...
>
>SELECT x1.b, a FROM x1 UNION SELECT a, b FROM x2 ORDER BY b;
>SELECT x1.b, a FROM x1 UNION SELECT a, b
On Dec 4, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Dr Gerard Hammond wrote:
I have reported it as a bug - ticket is http://www.sqlite.org/
cvstrac/tktview?tn=2822
It appears as though the /src/select.c (Line1499) changed
from:
if( iCol<0 && mustComplete ){
to:
}else if( mustComplete ){
in version 1.336 of
I have reported it as a bug - ticket is
http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/tktview?tn=2822
It appears as though the /src/select.c (Line1499) changed
from:
if( iCol<0 && mustComplete ){
to:
}else if( mustComplete ){
in version 1.336 of this file -
http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/filediff?f=sqli
--- Marco Bambini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Starting from version 3.4.2 I receive errors with queries like:
>
> SELECT a.field FROM a UNION ALL SELECT b.field FROM b ORDER BY a.field
> or even
> SELECT a.field FROM a UNION ALL SELECT a.field FROM a ORDER BY a.field
>
> error is:
> ORDER BY ter
Starting from version 3.4.2 I receive errors with queries like:
SELECT a.field FROM a UNION ALL SELECT b.field FROM b ORDER BY a.field
or even
SELECT a.field FROM a UNION ALL SELECT a.field FROM a ORDER BY a.field
error is:
ORDER BY term number 1 does not match any result column
Tables are crea
Tom,
Thanks for taking the time to document for my benefit more efficient
implementations.
Lee Crain
__
-Original Message-
From: T&B [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 4:08 AM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] UNION?
Hi
sers@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] UNION?
would have been nice to see the double parentheses in your example ...
I have seen MS Access as well being overly parenthesized, what does the
SQL92 standard say about that?
Jim
Lee Crain wrote:
> Richard,
>
> Thanks for suggesting it but no,
> Also, you may want to consider avoiding performing an IN on a UNION.
> As far as I know, SQLite doesn't optimize that, so will build the
> entire union before performing the IN. If you instead do the
> following, it should be a lot faster (if you have lots of data). But
> I may be wron
Hi Lee,
This query does not work in SQLite but works in MS SQL Server:
sqlite> SELECT items_idx, [name], active FROM Items
...> WHERE active = 'T' AND Items.items_idx IN
...> ((SELECT related_item FROM RelatedItems WHERE item = 1777)
...> UNION
...> (SELECT item FROM RelatedItems WH
CTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 3:38 PM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] UNION?
"Lee Crain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The query at the bottom of this email is failing on the word "UNION".
(The
query works
___
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 3:38 PM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] UNION?
"Lee Crain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The query at the bo
--- Lee Crain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've queried it in both the command line interface and via an
> sqlite3_exec() call in a C++ environment.
You must have a typo somewhere.
SQLite version 3.4.1
Enter ".help" for instructions
sqlite> CREATE TABLE Items(items_idx, name, active);
sqlite> INS
bject: Re: [sqlite] UNION?
There's nothing wrong with your query.
It works fine against this schema in sqlite 3.4.1:
CREATE TABLE Items(items_idx, name, active);
CREATE TABLE RelatedItems(item, related_item);
What language/tool are you using to query sqlite?
--- Lee Crain <[EMAIL PROT
"Lee Crain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The query at the bottom of this email is failing on the word "UNION". (The
> query works correctly in MS SQL Server.)
Works when I try it Do you think you might have some
invisible control characters or something in the middle of
the SQL?
>
> ___
There's nothing wrong with your query.
It works fine against this schema in sqlite 3.4.1:
CREATE TABLE Items(items_idx, name, active);
CREATE TABLE RelatedItems(item, related_item);
What language/tool are you using to query sqlite?
--- Lee Crain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The query at the bott
http://www.sqlite.org/lang_select.html
Lee Crain wrote:
The query at the bottom of this email is failing on the word "UNION". (The
query works correctly in MS SQL Server.)
I believe this is, unfortunately correct, since the SQLite documentation
does not mention the reserved word "UNION" in the
The query at the bottom of this email is failing on the word "UNION". (The
query works correctly in MS SQL Server.)
I believe this is, unfortunately correct, since the SQLite documentation
does not mention the reserved word "UNION" in the set of supported and
recognized SQL words (http://www.sqlit
Thanks for the help, Dennis. I created a bug with ticket number 1035
for anyone interested in following up on this.
Thanks!
Bob
-Original Message-
From: Dennis Cote [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 2:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [sqlite] Union
Bob Dankert wrote:
> I am trying to union two queries with each query having a sub-select
> defining the table, but I consistenly get no results if I try to limit
> the sub-query. Here is my query, assuming the table a and table
> contain one column filled with integers.
>
> Select * from (select
Bob Dankert wrote:
> I am trying to union two queries with each query having a sub-select
> defining the table, but I consistenly get no results if I try to limit
> the sub-query. Here is my query, assuming the table a and table
> contain one column filled with integers.
>
> Select * from (select
I am trying to union two queries with each query having a sub-select
defining the table, but I consistenly get no results if I try to limit
the sub-query. Here is my query, assuming the table a and table contain
one column filled with integers.
Select * from (select * from a limit 3) as a; <--
85 matches
Mail list logo
