assume there won't be so much companies and so much
features to make really big table of three ids tuples to make optimizer
even consider using an index, but it may be good habit to think how we
could help optimizer to filter out unnecessary data sooner than later.
regards, mariusz
> I do
lations) company, feature, companyfeature in your first mail and
features, company_features downward.
i wrote above examples as in your last query, but honestly i would not
really agree with such naming. for me relations (yes, relation like in
math background, more than table of objects) would be company,
m pasting any exapmles of
my own real queries (one i got open in terminal just now has about 400
lines, 8 cte, 3 of which are recursive, that would rather be counter
productive as a working example)
just wanted to assure you that multiple recursive ctes within one query
are possible and need only one RECURSIVE keyword appended to WITH
keyword.
regards, mariusz
On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 12:06 -0400, James Keener wrote:
> Do we need a code of conduct like this, or so we need a more general
> dispute resolution process? Something that is public and aimed at
> mediating disputes (even ones about bad conduct) and removing repeat
> offenders. To be honest, larger
ed in canonical version of
period daterange (assuming it won't ever change), and it would cross one
less days row per availability row,
on the other hand, someone reading such query may not know why -1 is
there, while my original query does not rely on subtle knowledge of
daterange internals and is more readable to anyone who can read sql.
just decide yourself what is more readable
regards, mariusz jadczak
ope that explains enough. as i already said, i'm not an expert, i'm
just coincidentally working currently on my semi-toy project which
utilizes dateranges quite heavily.
anyway, feel free to ask if you have any further questions. for now i'm
glad i could help somehow.
regards,
mar
hello,
one more fix, to not let someone get incorrect/incomplete ideas, see
below
On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 10:03 +0100, mariusz wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 18:11 -0800, Ken Tanzer wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 6:10 AM,
> >
On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 10:03 +0100, mariusz wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 18:11 -0800, Ken Tanzer wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 6:10 AM,
> > mariusz wrote:
> >
> >
> > i guess, you can easily get max continuous ra
On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 18:11 -0800, Ken Tanzer wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 6:10 AM,
> mariusz wrote:
>
>
> i guess, you can easily get max continuous range for each row
> with
> something like this:
>
On Thu, 2018-02-22 at 17:23 -0800, Ken Tanzer wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Adrian Klaver
> wrote:
> On 02/22/2018 04:58 PM, Ken Tanzer wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Adrian Klaver
>
On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 13:51 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> It is not a bug, it is feature. Sometimes not nice. RETURN is keyword
> in procedural part, but it is nothing in sql part.
>
thanks, i haven't thought about such an obvious thing, i feel really
ashamed.
of course it makes sense now. i gue
On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 05:40 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 5:31 AM, mariusz wrote:
>
> so, if there is a reason for such a construct and it does
> something i
> didn't notice, please let me know what is the purpose of
>
atively harmless (just
hurts one's eyes)
regards,
mariusz jadczak
13 matches
Mail list logo
