Re: Update Query doesn't affect all records

From: Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Update Query doesn't affect all records
Date: 2009-08-05 17:33:19
Message-ID: 20090805173319.GS5407@samason.me.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 11:27:52AM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Csaba Nagy<nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:15 +0200, Schindler Andor wrote:
> >> Can anyone tell me, how this is possible? If we insert 12 on the end, then
> >> it decreases, but 11 remains the same. The problem only occurs, when the
> >> where condition contains "sorrend > 9" or less.
> >
> > I bet the "sorrend" column is of some text type, and the "sorrend > 9"
> > comparison is a text comparison. Try "sorrend::integer > 9" and it
> > should work ;-)
>
> That's kinda what I was thinking at first, but the pastebin he posted
> showed them in proper int type order.

Also the fact that 12 "works".

> Otherwise we're blind men describing an elephant.

Interesting analogy, not heard that one before!

--
Sam http://samason.me.uk/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Doug Gorley 2009-08-05 18:14:11 Re: Generating GRANT/REVOKE on functions from catalog
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2009-08-05 17:27:52 Re: Update Query doesn't affect all records