| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, "Richard Rowell" <rwrowell(at)bellsouth(dot)net> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: top? |
| Date: | 2002-01-04 01:59:47 |
| Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOOEAACBAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Richard Rowell wrote:
>
> > Just wondering if there was a "TOP" equivilant in Postgres?
> > IE
> > select top 1 * from froo
> > (only returns 1 row)
>
> select * from froo limit 1;
>
> Usually you'll want to order as well so that you get a meaningfully
> chosen row rather than whatever row happens to be scanned first.
Actually I think its essential that he orders it. I think the 'top' thing
is a microsoft-ism that gets the 'top 10 items' say from a column. I can't
remember if it's the 10 with the highest values or the ten with the most
common values...
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bhuvan A | 2002-01-04 06:47:45 | maintaining a field for every UPDATION. |
| Previous Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-01-03 23:48:06 | Re: top? |