Rich Shepard wrote:
I'm surprised: that worked! I thought the WHERE clause was looking for
equivalency, not an assignment.
SQL generally uses "=" to mean equality test, but sometimes it also uses "=" to
mean assignment; it depends on the context; eg, in an UPDATE statement it can
have both
On 06/05/2012 04:49 PM, Rich Shepard wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, David Johnston wrote:
As for the duplicate key I would first check to see if you are inserting
into a non-empty table and that one or more of your newly inserted
records
conflicts with existing records on the waterchem table. The e
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, David Johnston wrote:
As for the duplicate key I would first check to see if you are inserting
into a non-empty table and that one or more of your newly inserted records
conflicts with existing records on the waterchem table. The easiest way
would be to insert into a staging
records are returned.
David J.
> -Original Message-
> From: pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-
> ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Rich Shepard
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 7:28 PM
> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Populate Table Fro
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Greg Williamson wrote:
Try a single equals sign, e.g. WHERE c.site = s.siteid
Greg,
I'm surprised: that worked! I thought the WHERE clause was looking for
equivalency, not an assignment.
There's another problem now that will be more difficult to fix. Postgres
tells me
Rich --
> I want to combine columns in two tables and use the exported resulting
>table for statistical analyses. The SQL script is:
>
>INSERT INTO waterchem (site, sampdate, param, quant, ceneq1, low, high,
> stream, basin)
> SELECT c.site, c.sampdate, c.param, c.quant, c.ceneq1, c.low, c.
