| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Comments:
<0> or SELECT UNIQUE
<1> lotsa people recommended against installing xp64 on amd64
<2> can this be solved ?
<2> o thanks alot
<2> let me check :)
<0> SELECT DISTINCT
<3> Quant: i sure did that
<2> SELECT DISTICNT on some field ?
<3> Quant: but getting drivers is an arse
<3> you have to get all the 64bit ones
<2> Quant is the man, well used to be :)
<4> Quant: There are a lot of gotchas in general. The 64-bit OS can't load 32-bit drivers, 64-bit processes can't load 32-bit DLLs, etc.
<2> Quant could u help
<3> and two system dirs etc for that
<0> ifreezeu, try to use SELECT DISTINCT instead of SELECT
<2> Its all worth it , if u play COD2 or BF2 :)
<2> k mate
<2> same thing mate :(
<0> hmmm
<0> maybe it is your "INNER JOIN"
<2> k , shall i change it to ...
<0> maybe you should be using a LEFT or RIGHT JOIN?
<5> Halo_Four I don't have issues with my x86_64 version of windows ... it runs 32-bit backwards compatible stuff just fine ... so far anyhow
<6> The only "problem" win 64 bit windows is not everyone has written 64 bit drivers yet ... and you can't run 32 bit ones in a 64 bit kernel.
<6> Other than that, its fine.
<7> other then the fact that its crappy :P ?
<7> and buggy?
<6> This gives occ***ional problems with games, cause some copy protection schemes install funky drivers that just don't work because they're too lazy to detect the OS properly.
<4> It's normal platform shifting growing pains.
<7> i wouldnt be surprised
<7> if stable 64-bit xp is a pipe dream
<7> i'd imagine 2k3 and vista are the only real oses ms is going to spend muchos r&d for
<4> The stability comes from the drivers.
<7> from what i've heard of 64-bit xp over the last x years ms has had it out
<7> its more then just drivers :p
<4> It's only been RTM for the past 6 months or do.
<4> so
<7> heh yeah
<7> and most of the problems that they are still having in RTM
<4> Problems being?
<7> should have been solved 6 months prior to rtm
<8> Hopefully an easy SQL2k Question: Two columns, I want to take data based on the first column and, and output that plus the second column (multiple rows) as one field (with a separator, like a comma or something) based on a unique first column.
<4> say what?
<7> liek select column1 + '|' + column2 as columnnew from table?
<8> well column1 would have 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3
<8> column2 would have a, b, c, d, e, f, g
<8> and the query should result in 1 | a,b,c,d
<8> 2 | e
<8> 3 | f,g
<7> ummmm
<8> pipe = column separator, not a delimiter
<7> either you're being an *** bandit
<7> or you cant read or comprehend
<4> Could probably do it using a bizarre mix of windowing functions, depending on the RDBMS in question
<4> ah, sql2k, no windowing functions
<8> I thought it would be a modified union, but am not sure
<7> dman
<7> http://www.entmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=7108
<7> that lee dude that ms and google fought over was ****ing smart
<8> it's a legit question, Arrakis, maybe I'm not asking it right...hard to do in here without multi-line pasting =/
<7> <8> well column1 would have 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3
<7> does <8> "1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3" repreresent a single row?
<8> columns are not delimiters, they are rows
<7> or 7 unique records?
<8> 7 unique rows
<7> in that case as i said - you couldnt read or comrperehnd
<7> as my query with either no or little modification will do what you requested
<8> no, I want the unique column1 and each column2
<8> each column2 as comman delimited
<7> ohs
<7> ill go back to *** banditry then :P
<4> A bunch of tricky cursors at best, but this is probably best accomplished at the client.
<7> yep
<0> too bad quicktime sux
<8> no way to do it without a cursor?
<0> ;p
<4> Not with a single SQL statement, no
<7> icnocop - teh technology behind it is pretty good
<7> the way it was adapted and presented to end users is what uscks
<7> ****s
<7> which is all appple
<4> Particularly since there is no facility to aggregate rows into CSV in SQL2K
<0> yes, you are right. :)
<9> hello
<10> I have a question concerning an sql statement
<10> I have a table wich is like this: id, cl***name
<10> and i have a user cl*** column wich is filled like "1.2.3.4."
<10> where 1, 2, 3 and 4 are user cl***es the user is in
<10> is there a way to join on that string?
<7> do i sense more *** banditry?
<2> anyone got few minutes to help ?
<2> it just doesnt get solved, everytime i try. Yet seems so simple
<0> ifreezeu, have you tried doing RIGHT/LEFT OUTER JOINS?
<2> yes mate
<2> all of them
<0> oh :(
<2> sorry i should have said so
<2> do u think it needs like extra query on results
<2> I mean like first make, get a table representing , 1 order row to only 1 product row. And then do a group by on the end table
<0> i would try to simplify your select statement but still be able to reproduce the problem.
<0> that way we can eliminate what could be wrong
<2> k makes sense
<2> k 1 thing i forgot to mention, if i dont metion products_ordered in the query
<2> the results r fine
<2> FROM
<2> table_orders O
<2> this works but not when i join it with producs_orederd.
<2> but i want that table included, as i need 1 of its fields product_id in the where clause.
<0> try "SELECT DISTINCT O.parent_auto_id ..."
<2> thanks , i m sure i did that last night. But i am not lazy :)
<2> i sec
<2> k its not letting me run query with that , invalid as its not part of the aggregate fucntion
<2> part of the message
<11> hah
<11> dev has issue exporting data to access, tries excel.. still no workie
<12> a coworker went to optimize a SP and you won't believe what he found!
<11> he thinks it might be the 2million+ records
<12> This SP gets all entries in a given month... our predecessors hardcoded the day, copy & pasted the SQL 30 times, hardcoding each day, all in a 1,000 line stored procedure!
<11> hrmmm, i'll let that one settle for awhile.. it's too early to be pointing out the obvious
<2> k if i include , O.parent_auto_id in groupby it works fine
<2> <0>
<0> oh ok. i guess that kind of makes sense
<0> :D
<2> yes :)
<2> a little relief, but its grouping by , O.order and month.
<2> Do i do a final group on this end table, by month. I think that should be it ?
<13> is there any way, when ***igning values to variables declared in plpgsql, for the code not to have to go back to the engine? for a in 0..10,000,000 loop end loop; (FAST). for a in 0..10,000,000 loop i:=a; end loop; <--- WAYYYYYYYY Slower
<2> <0> u there ?
<14> UbaDub how about showing us what you are trying to do
<15> hey chaps
<14> if you have a for loop its a stored procedure, which runs on the server already
<15> so I'm working on an odbc sybase setup, and I have one table with a field of type 'memo', and another table with a number field. I want to get a result set of all the rows in both tables where the memo field is equal to 'FOO-' & [Number]. Any suggestions?
<0> i'm here
<15> Ah stupid me, I was trying it on a table w/o any data in it *smacks forehead*
<0> ifreezeu, i think if you add month to the ORDER BY maybe that is what you want?
<5> ...
<2> no, sorry
<5> be aggressive, don't apoligize ...
<5> said "well wtf ... why not just say that then?" instead
<5> s/said/say
<2> he is helping me. so i owe him that :)
<5> Gambit-: select * from tmemo m inner join tnumber n on m.memo = 'FOO-' + n.number;
<2> anyways i have modified the sproc to this. http://pastebin.com/498125
<5> ifreezeu you owe no one nothing ... they owe you an anwser ... simple as that
<5> :)
<2> i thought it was taking me somewhere but no, now if i have 2 orderes with 3 products ordered each. Its only listening 1 of those orders
<15> _MoZ_, I tried that, but let me try it again.
<2> i meant him Moz, or r u in a funny mood :)
<5> ifreezeu always am ...
<2> good to hear :)
<15> _MoZ_, what I did get working was doing WHERE m.memo = 'FOO-' + n.number, instead of as an inner join... will that be acceptable?
Return to
#sql
or
Go to some related
logs:
#mirc
#red
backroud flash
#unixhelp
infamousgangsters hack
#windowsxp
#flash
#hardware
sas select permission
#stocks
|
|