From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)qwest(dot)net> |
Cc: | Shane|SkinnyCorp <shanew(at)skinnycorp(dot)com>, PgSQL ADMIN <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PLEASE GOD HELP US! |
Date: | 2004-10-02 15:14:54 |
Message-ID: | 20041002080923.C99145@megazone.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 14:26, Shane | SkinnyCorp wrote:
> > Okay, just so no one posts about this again...
> >
> > the 'ORDER BY t.status=5,lastreply' clause is meant to float the threads
> > with a status of '5' to the top of the list... it is NOT meant to only grab
> > threads where the status = 5. Oh and believe me, when I take this out of
> > the query, it CERTAINLY doesn't add any more than possible 1/4 of a
> > millesecond to the speed of the SELECT statement.
>
>
> Wouldn't this work just as well?
>
> SELECT * FROM thread_listing AS t ORDER BY t.status
> DESC,t.lastreply desc LIMIT 25 OFFSET 0
Probably not, because I don't think he wants the other statuses to have
special ranking over the others, so a status=4 and status=1 row should be
sorted by lastreply only effectively. This is the problem of combining
separate status flags into a single field if you want to be doing these
sorts of queries.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Long | 2004-10-02 18:14:03 | Installing postgresql-8.0.0beta3 |
Previous Message | John McBride | 2004-10-02 10:29:28 | Re: fedora core 2 postgresql regression tests fail |