Re: NOT HAVING clause?

From: Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>
To: Alban Hertroys <alban(at)magproductions(dot)nl>
Cc: Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: NOT HAVING clause?
Date: 2006-01-24 11:51:35
Message-ID: 44549108-9F40-49B6-8F8C-3F4109034A54@myrealbox.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general


On Jan 24, 2006, at 20:00 , Alban Hertroys wrote:

> Though this does give the right results, I would have liked to be
> able to use NOT HAVING. Or is there a way using HAVING that would
> give the same results? I'm quite sure HAVING sort_order <> 1
> doesn't mean the same thing.

Why are you so sure? It seems to me that NOT HAVING sort_order = 1
and HAVING sort_order <> 1 would mean semantically the same thing.
Can you show that HAVING sort_order <> 1 gives incorrect results?

Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pandurangan R S 2006-01-24 11:54:25 Re: NOT HAVING clause?
Previous Message Alban Hertroys 2006-01-24 11:00:44 NOT HAVING clause?