From: | Alexander Reichstadt <lxr(at)mac(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Solved [Re: GROUP BY or alternative means to group] |
Date: | 2012-03-12 21:02:25 |
Message-ID: | 9BD44C1A-E50E-4DDE-9C94-2ED1D606C487@mac.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
So the mysql way for group by seems to be non-standard.
What works for postgres is the DISTINCT ON (fieldname) approach.
Thanks
Am 12.03.2012 um 20:35 schrieb Alexander Reichstadt:
> Hi,
>
> the following statement worked on mysql but gives me an error on postgres:
>
> column "addresses.address1" must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be used in an aggregate function
>
> I guess I am doing something wrong. I read the web answers, but none of them seem to meet my needs:
>
> SELECT companies.id,companies.name,companies.organizationkind,addresses.address1,addresses.address2,addresses.city,addresses.zip FROM companies JOIN addresses_reference ON companies.id=addresses_reference.refid_companies LEFT JOIN addresses ON addresses_reference.refid_addresses=addresses.id GROUP BY companies.id;
>
>
> What I did now was create a view based on above statement but without grouping. This returns a list with non-distinct values for all companies that have more than one address, which is correct. But in some cases I only need one address and the problem is that I cannot use distinct.
>
> I wanted to have some way to display a companies list that only gives me the first stored addresses related, and disregard any further addresses.
>
> Is there any way to do this?
>
> Thanks
> Alex
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kiriakos Georgiou | 2012-03-12 21:03:34 | Re: GROUP BY or alternative means to group |
Previous Message | Bartosz Dmytrak | 2012-03-12 20:57:11 | Re: GROUP BY or alternative means to group |