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/
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 |