From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Kashmir <kashmir_us_1999(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: some external sql not working in psql |
Date: | 2009-04-08 20:42:06 |
Message-ID: | 19467.1239223326@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Kashmir <kashmir_us_1999(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> being a sql-lamer, i used some query builder help to build my query (which served me quite well in the past for all my 'complicated' sqls), and was suggested for f_rrd_id=444 to use something as:
> SELECT
> td_fetch1m_by_rrd_id.f_timestamp,
> td_fetch_by_rrd_id.f_ds,
> td_fetch_by_rrd_id.f_ds,
> td_fetch1m_by_rrd_id.f_ds,
> td_fetch1m_by_rrd_id.f_us
> FROM td_fetch_by_rrd_id
> RIGHT JOIN td_fetch1m_by_rrd_id ON td_fetch_by_rrd_id.f_timestamp=td_fetch1m_by_rrd_id.f_timestamp
> WHERE td_fetch1m_by_rrd_id.f_rrd_id=444
> ORDER BY td_fetch1m_by_rrd_id.f_timestamp;
Seems like that should be a LEFT JOIN, if you're expecting there to be
missing values in td_fetch_by_rrd_id rather than the other. The WHERE
and ORDER BY clauses don't look right either unless LEFT was meant.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Treat | 2009-04-08 21:06:44 | Re: Are there performance advantages in storing bulky field in separate table? |
Previous Message | Chris Browne | 2009-04-08 20:31:33 | Re: Are there performance advantages in storing bulky field in separate table? |