Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you really want:
>
> select distinct on (b,c,a) a,b,c from abc order by b,c,a;
>
> or is that you want
>
> select * from (select distinct on (a) a,b,c order by a) order by
> b,c,a;
If I understand you correctly, I don't think I would expect either.
-
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm trying to change all the walkers and mutators to have a more
> strict prototype. I had to do this with lots of casts.
>
> I don't really like the idea of having all those generic pointer
> types (Node * and void *), but currently see no better way to
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We reject the following query:
>
> nconway=# create table abc (a int, b int, c int);
> CREATE TABLE
> nconway=# select distinct on (a) a, b, c from abc order by b, c, a;
> ERROR: SELECT DISTINCT ON expressions must match initial ORDER BY
> expressions
W
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> SELECT x.*
> FROM x,
> (select match (x.foo, '([0-9]+)x([0-9]+)')
> from x innerx
>where innerx.pk = x.pk
>) as res
> HAVING y = get_match_group(res, 2)
> OR y = get_match_group(res, 3)
> ;
Well you don't need to go
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 18:39:20 -0500,
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> /*
>* If the user writes both DISTINCT ON and ORDER BY, then the
>* two expression lists must match (until one or the other
>* runs out). Otherwise the O
David Fetter kirjutas L, 13.12.2003 kell 23:17:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 10:58:59PM +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > David Fetter kirjutas R, 12.12.2003 kell 20:13:
> > > Kind people,
>
> > > I'm looking to the SQL WITH clause as a way to get better regex
> > > support in PostgreSQL. I've been ch
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 10:58:59PM +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> David Fetter kirjutas R, 12.12.2003 kell 20:13:
> > Kind people,
> > I'm looking to the SQL WITH clause as a way to get better regex
> > support in PostgreSQL. I've been chatting a little bit about
> > this, and here's an idea for a
David Fetter kirjutas R, 12.12.2003 kell 20:13:
> Kind people,
>
> I'm looking to the SQL WITH clause as a way to get better regex
> support in PostgreSQL. I've been chatting a little bit about this,
> and here's an idea for a behavior. Implementation details TBD.
>
> WITH res = match (x.foo, '
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Christopher Browne wrote:
> Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to fit with the way WITH is defined
> in SQL.
How is the WITH construct defined in SQL?
--
/Dennis
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your fr
