From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "'hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | AW: [HACKERS] correlated subquery |
Date: | 1999-12-30 13:42:21 |
Message-ID: | 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C603FDC1EA@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> SELECT f1.firstname, f1.lastname, f1.age
> FROM friends f1
> WHERE age = (
> SELECT MAX(age)
> FROM friends f2
> WHERE f1.state = f2.state
> )
> ORDER BY firstname, lastname
>
> It finds the oldest person in each state. HAVING can't do
> that, right?
Having can do that particular case: (e.g. Informix)
SELECT f1.firstname, f1.lastname, f1.age
FROM friends f1, friends f2
WHERE f1.state = f2.state
GROUP BY f2.state, f1.firstname, f1.lastname, f1.age, f1.state
HAVING f1.age = max(f2.age)
ORDER BY firstname, lastname;
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-12-30 15:05:30 | Re: AW: [HACKERS] correlated subquery |
Previous Message | Stephen Birch | 1999-12-30 13:10:32 | Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 release |