Good evening folks, I'm seeing some odd behavior in MySQL 4.0.21
running on Mac OS X 10.3.7
I'm trying to compare two identical tables and find the rows
that are new/modified. I can't use a timestamp column because
the "new" table is constantly regenerated. So I'm using a large
WHERE clause and t
| b| b| c| c|
+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| NULL |2 | NULL |2 | NULL |2 |
| NULL |3 | NULL |3 | NULL |3 |
| NULL |4 | NULL |4 | NULL | 4 |
+------+--+--+--+--+--+
3 rows in set (0.00 sec)
--
Rene Ch
uld have been CC:-ing the list this
whole time. That way everyone else would have been able to contribute
and learn, too.
It's a hard call to make, between pestering uninterested parties
and teaching those who never see the intermediate steps in figuring
out a problem. Posting the answer
I'm having a problem with mysql forgetting the location
of it's datadir. After the server has been running for
some time, it looses track and starts throwing errors
when I attempt to select a database. Killing mysqld
and letting safe_mysqld restart it fixes the problem
for a while, but having t
If all you're looking for is a trivial hiding of the data, then I'd
suggest doing a rot13 on the string. I highly doubt there is a native
SQL function that does this, so you'll need to write your own function
in whatever interface you're using. Perl/PHP/whatever.
Rot13 is a simple rotation of
g it up. I can run the memory up
> to 4g on the machine if necessary to handle the extra memory requirements.
> Also, are there changes I'll have to make to my apps that use mysql to deal
> with this? I searched the list for multiple daemons and didn't find much
> there, m
s who did not confirm reading the email. My Query is like:
> select member_id, (more) FROM members WHERE read_array not like '%mail_id%'
>
> Is there any possible way I could accompish this task in one query if I had
> this process
rs that
>have not read the mailing, is that possible (assuming I don't use the
>reverted logic you were talking about).
>
>
>
>Daren Cotter
>CEO, InboxDollars.com
>http://www.inboxdollars.com
>(507) 382-0435
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Rene Churchil
Definitely pull the data out into an array with one large
query. It'll be much faster than the thousands/millions
of queries you'd be generating otherwise. Graph-theory
problems like this go exponential really fast.
Rene
At 02:05 PM 8/20/01, you wrote:
>Hans Zaunere wrote:
>>Maybe it'
gt;
>
> -
> Before posting, please check:
>http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
>http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
>
> To request this thread, e-mail <[EM
10 matches
Mail list logo
