On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 10:11:24PM +0900, tanjunhua wrote:
> thanks for your response.
>
> >Maybe if you could describe what you want to do in English then the
> >query would make a bit more sense.
> I just want those records as the below rule:
> 1. the record of which uid is 2, status is more tha
thanks for your response.
Maybe if you could describe what you want to do in English then the
query would make a bit more sense.
I just want those records as the below rule:
1. the record of which uid is 2, status is more than 20, bpassword is 0 and
realdelflag is 0 in tab_main;
1.1 the recor
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 02:31:46PM +0900, tanjunhua wrote:
> I
> have the trouble that it cost me a lot of time when execute the select
> syntax. the following is the select syntax and analyze result.
> EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT count(Id) FROM (SELECT DISTINCT t1.Id AS Id FROM
> tab_main t1, tab_
Hello, everybody.
In my project, I have a select syntax to get record summary between three
tables. one of them is tab_main consist of 46 columns(with 27797 records),
another is tab_user consist of 32 columns(with 3 records) and the last one
is tab_property consist of 117 columns(with 30541 re
piled by GCC cc (GCC) 4.1.2
20061115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-21)
(1 row)
- Original Message -
From: "tanjunhua"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 2:31 PM
Subject: [GENERAL] Join efficiency
Hello, everybody.
In my project, I have a select syntax to get record
"Russ Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there any difference between these queries in terms of the speed of
> planning or the quality of the plan untimately used?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/static/explicit-joins.html
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.3/static/explicit-joins.html
htt
Russ Brown wrote:
> >> SELECT * FROM a, b WHERE a.x=b.x;
> >> SELECT * FROM a JOIN b ON a.x=b.x;
> That being the case, would it be true to say that with recent versions of
> PostgreSQL they both perform identically, meaning the second could be
> considered preferable due to its self-documenting
John Sidney-Woollett wrote:
Does anyone know if there is a postgres shorthand for Oracle's (+)
notation to denote an outer join?
eg
SELECT * from a, b where a.x = b.x (+)
Just the standard LEFT JOIN ... afaik
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
---(end of broadcast)
Does anyone know if there is a postgres shorthand for Oracle's (+)
notation to denote an outer join?
eg
SELECT * from a, b where a.x = b.x (+)
John Sidney-Woollett
Richard Huxton wrote:
Russ Brown wrote:
I have always written queries with ordinary joins in this manner:
SELECT * FROM a, b WHERE a.
Russ Brown wrote:
I have always written queries with ordinary joins in this manner:
SELECT * FROM a, b WHERE a.x=b.x;
However I recently saw an laternative syntax:
SELECT * FROM a JOIN b ON a.x=b.x;
Is there any difference between these queries in terms of the speed of
planning or the quality of
) 441-9085
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Russ Brown
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 7:55 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [GENERAL] Join efficiency
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> Recently a post on this
Hello all,
Recently a post on this list made me think a bit about the way in which I
write my queries.
I have always written queries with ordinary joins in this manner:
SELECT * FROM a, b WHERE a.x=b.x;
However I recently saw an laternative syntax:
SELECT * FROM a JOIN b ON a.x=b.x;
Is there any
12 matches
Mail list logo
