meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 1 year, 1 month |
| seen | 35 mins ago | |
| stats | profile views | 49 |
|
May 13 |
awarded | Caucus |
|
Apr 20 |
awarded | Yearling |
|
Apr 10 |
answered | Column partially determining accepted values of another column, should be somehow normalized? |
|
Apr 3 |
comment |
Handling expiration in a course registration or ticketing system And in addition, create views such as REGISTRATION_EXPIRED_WITHOUT_PAYMENT and REGISTRATION_UNPAID_UNEXPIRED. |
|
Apr 3 |
answered | What happens to a Trigger if a table is dropped and rename and recreated with same name |
|
Mar 28 |
awarded | Quorum |
|
Mar 13 |
comment |
Representing SQL constraints on a table Chris, The accepted answer in that post does not give a declarative solution, and the answer by AKuznetzov forces three extra columns upon the user, and I'm not sure it is entirely impossible for the user to have the integrity test fail because of mistakes in those extra three columns. |
|
Mar 12 |
comment |
Representing SQL constraints on a table Even if he dropped the floor condition, can he have his constraint enforced declaratively with those engines that you mention ? |
|
Mar 12 |
answered | Performing SELECT on EACH ROW in CTE or Nested QUERY? |
|
Mar 2 |
answered | Why is optimistic locking faster than pessimistic locking? |
|
Mar 2 |
comment |
Why is optimistic locking faster than pessimistic locking? No it doesn't. That's why it's "faster". |
|
Feb 20 |
comment |
Database functional dependency BCNF help As far as normal forms theory is concerned, yes. As far as logical database design is concerned, remember that xNF is not where the story ends. |
|
Feb 19 |
answered | Database functional dependency BCNF help |
|
Feb 19 |
answered | Multiple primary keys |
|
Feb 18 |
comment |
ORDER BY clause is allowed over column that is not in SELECT list? Or it wouldn't. A table is explicitly defined by the standard to be an "unordered collection of rows". Make that fit with ORDER BY clauses ... |
|
Feb 18 |
comment |
ORDER BY clause is allowed over column that is not in SELECT list? For the problem the OP describes, just putting the ORDER BY before the SELECT will do the job. Don't read too much into these kinds of "flowcharts of query processing". They are rarely intended for being 100% accurate and complete. Rather, they are intended for illustrating somewhat globally what goes on as a consequence of an SQL statement being issued. |
|
Feb 14 |
answered | Where can I find the SQL standard document? |
|
Feb 1 |
comment |
What is the correct result for this query? @Kevin did you ask ISO for permission to copy ? :-) |
|
Jan 29 |
comment |
What is the correct result for this query? Well the key issue is whether it's indeed true that "even if the table has no rows at all, it's still one group of 0 rows". And the standard turns out to be explicit about this : "If there are no grouping columns, then ... is the grouped table consisting of T as its only group". (and that holds even if T is empty - so there is indeed a group.) Further on, the having clause specifies that the condition is applied to each group (in the example thus once). They probably defined it this way to make SUM and COUNT return one row even for empty T's. |
|
Jan 29 |
answered | Looking for a scalable relational database |
