Gary Stainburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The two selects work seperately, but I'm still getting the
> syntax for the combined quiery wrong.
What you've got here reduces to
select co.co_r_id, co.count as com_count, cor.count as com_unseen
from
(select ...) co,
(select ...) cor on co.co_r_id = cor.co_r_id;
which is invalid because "ON something" must be associated with JOIN.
You could write either of
select co.co_r_id, co.count as com_count, cor.count as com_unseen
from
(select ...) co join
(select ...) cor on co.co_r_id = cor.co_r_id;
select co.co_r_id, co.count as com_count, cor.count as com_unseen
from
(select ...) co,
(select ...) cor
where co.co_r_id = cor.co_r_id;
but you can't mix-and-match.
With an inner join there isn't any semantic difference between ON and
WHERE, so it's a matter of taste which to use. But with outer joins
there's a big difference.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
