uot; from "Utilisateurs" where "Cle" not in
test1-# (select distinct "CleUtil" from "Histoires" where "CleUtil" is
not null);
Cle
-
2
3
4
(3 rows) -- That's what I expected in the first place.
Could someone explain to me why not eliminating nulls destroys the
potential results of the query ? In other words, for any X not null, X
not in (some NULLs) is false.
Emmanuel Charpentier
lcomed of course.
You should peruse a good database/SQL primer. I have good things to say
about Bruce Momjian's book, available from Addison-Wesley or readable
online on Postgresql's site at :
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/aw_pgsql_book/index.html
Hope this helps !
Emmanuel Charpentier
appreciated.
[ Donning dumb hat ... ]
Did you try :
DELETE FROM serviceproviders AS sp1
?
[ Leaving dumb hat ]
[ Donning dumber hat ]
Did you try using another name ?
[ Leaving dumber hat ]
[ Donning asbestos longjohns ]
Hope this helps !
Emmanuel Charpentier
--
Emmanuel Charpentier
ile ... Baaah ! The IS unit is Newtons per square meter,
and all decimal powers of it.
Emanuel Charpentier
Decimal since 1798 (Year VII of the Republic)
--
Emmanuel Charpentier
ing a
Codd-conformant RDBMS ! No hassles with updates and/or deletions in
invoice_payments ...
Emmanuel Charpentier
--
Emmanuel Charpentier
ger ?
Sincerely yours,
Emmanuel Charpentier
--
Emmanuel Charpentier
eem not to be at the time ...
--
Emmanuel Charpentier
Agreed. But keep in mind that a tralnslation is a *huge* work,
especially in a domain such as computers where most competent people are
used to more-or-less "think in English" about their domain of expertise.
Furthermore, PostgreSQL docs are a hell of a moving target ...
Therefore,
se" your DB ? This seems to be essential to PG
performance, for various reasons.
Do you have a unique index on your primary key ?
HTH,
Emmanuel Charpentier
