On 19/01/2011 00:04, Alban Hertroys wrote:
On 18 Jan 2011, at 23:03, Raymond O'Donnell wrote:
I suppose you meant particular? Yes, definitely. Although I'm
sure some would find it peculiar as well :)
Actually, "peculiar to" is perfectly correct here, though a bit
old-fashioned. According to
On 18 Jan 2011, at 23:03, Raymond O'Donnell wrote:
>>> I suppose you meant particular? Yes, definitely. Although I'm sure
>>> some would find it peculiar as well :)
>>
>> Actually, "peculiar to" is perfectly correct here, though a bit
>> old-fashioned. According to my dictionary, it originally m
On 18/01/2011 19:34, Tom Lane wrote:
Alban Hertroys writes:
On 18 Jan 2011, at 19:59, James B. Byrne wrote:
I can see the motivation for something like DISTINCT ON. I take
it that this syntax is peculiar to PostgreSQL?:
I suppose you meant particular? Yes, definitely. Although I'm sure
som
On Tue, January 18, 2011 14:28, Alban Hertroys wrote:
>
> Nope, but some Googling put me on the right track. It's called a
> correlated subquery.
Thank you for this. I will delve further.
>> I can see the motivation for something like DISTINCT ON. I take
>> it that this syntax is peculiar to
Alban Hertroys writes:
> On 18 Jan 2011, at 19:59, James B. Byrne wrote:
>> I can see the motivation for something like DISTINCT ON. I take it
>> that this syntax is peculiar to PostgreSQL?:
> I suppose you meant particular? Yes, definitely. Although I'm sure some would
> find it peculiar as we
On 18 Jan 2011, at 19:59, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Tue, January 18, 2011 13:23, Alban Hertroys wrote:
>>
>>
>> Standard SQL alternatives tend to get complex, using self-joins to
>> weed out all the records you don't want (the exact term for such
>> joins escapes me right now, that would hel
On Tue, January 18, 2011 13:23, Alban Hertroys wrote:
>
>
> Standard SQL alternatives tend to get complex, using self-joins to
> weed out all the records you don't want (the exact term for such
> joins escapes me right now, that would help with Googling if you're
> looking for examples).
Would th
On 18 Jan 2011, at 19:02, James B. Byrne wrote:
> Given a table "shipments" having a column called "mode" I want to
> extract one entire shipment row (all columns) for each distinct
> value of mode. Assuming that there are 1700 rows and that there are
> just five distinct values in use for mode t
I am working with Ruby on Rails and I have stumbled into a situation
which turned out to be, surprisingly for me, somewhat involved.
Given a table "shipments" having a column called "mode" I want to
extract one entire shipment row (all columns) for each distinct
value of mode. Assuming that ther
