# TODO: put a real copy-container on Select and copy, or somehow make this # not modify the Select statement
In the above comments, are we referring to a solution where the original select statement is wrap inside another select statement where the actual row_number function is applied? On 15/07/07, lei you <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not exactly sure about what Valentin is doing there, will need to take a > look at the actual schema and data involved, > > select distinct path, row_number() over (order by path desc) as ora_rn > from Block > > row_number() is always distinct, therefore, the results returned by the > above query will include all duplicate rows, now why would group by orn_rn, > path help in this scenario? > > one way to solve the distinct problem could be. wrap the actual query > involving distinct inside an inner query, then apply row number on that > instead. > > so we have > select *, row_number() over (order by path desc) from (select distinct > path from Block) > > > On 14/07/07, Michael Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 13, 2007, at 4:20 AM, lei you wrote: > > > > > Thank you for the extremely speedy response :) > > > > > > Are we aware of any other impacts of oracle's offset+limit > > > implication? > > > > it has issues with DISTINCT as well. there is ticket #536 for this > > which I spent some time with but not enough to understand what was > > going on there exactly...if you care to look into that and help > > clarify for me that would help. > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
