Re: Possible bug in Postgres? Followup to "How do you select from a table until a condition is met?"

But I'm not returning the surnames. I just execute this query (sorry I forgot
to put it in my last email):

select count(*) FROM vu_tbl_user_all_s WHERE s_surname < 'Asurname' or
(s_surname = 'Asurname' and s_alias <= 'CISX' and s_loginid <= 'Loginid8')
ORDER BY s_surname, s_loginid;

So all I am returning is the count right? If I execute the query using *
instead of count(*) to actually see the rows it returns the rows as expected
upto the row I was interested in. I would assume if postgres can execute a
query to give me row data it should also be able to execute the query and
count the rows without actually giving me the row data when I use count(*).

I have tried this on MySQL and it works just not on Postgres so it doesn't
seem to be something I am doing wrong. Which is why I thought it must be a
bug in Postgres.

Am I not missing something here. Is there something wrong with the syntax of
the above query?

Thjanks again for your help! I really appreciate it.

On Thursday 13 Feb 2003 3:19 am, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 23:21:18 +0100,
>
> Nicholas Allen <nallen(at)freenet(dot)co(dot)uk> wrote:
> > However, if I try to count the records using the count(*) function I get
> > the following error.
> >
> > ERROR: Attribute vu_tbl_user_all_s.s_surname must be GROUPed or used in
> > an aggregate function
> >
> > Surely, if postgres can execute the query it should also be able to count
> > the rows that would be returned in the query? Is this a bug in Postgres
> > and is there a work around? I am using Postgres 7.3.
>
> If you are using count you probably don't want to be returning surnames,
> just the count.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html