Re: ODBC issue with aggregate fields (SUM)

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
To: Tim Nelson <timnelson(at)phreaker(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ODBC issue with aggregate fields (SUM)
Date: 2005-08-10 14:38:47
Message-ID: 20050810143847.GA6494@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:08:20AM -0400, Tim Nelson wrote:

> So the size of SUM("str_sls_totals"."strsl_net_dly") is 20. When we
> change the year to 2004 the size is returned as 30 ! ! ! Is this by
> design or a bug.

What is the type of that column? I'm thinking, if it's numeric, then
it's quite possible that two different amounts can have different sizes.

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org>)
"You're _really_ hosed if the person doing the hiring doesn't understand
relational systems: you end up with a whole raft of programmers, none of
whom has had a Date with the clue stick." (Andrew Sullivan)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message TJ O'Donnell 2005-08-10 14:53:58 Re: best way to reference tables
Previous Message Tim Nelson 2005-08-10 14:08:20 ODBC issue with aggregate fields (SUM)