From: | Matthew Peter <survivedsushi(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: searching array |
Date: | 2005-10-17 18:54:50 |
Message-ID: | 20051017185450.70191.qmail@web35207.mail.mud.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Yes. I did read it wrong. I wanted to find all records
that contained x where x >= 10000
I am using ANY in my query on my test box I copied the
ALL from example query in the docs, which still isn't
working for me.
--- Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Matthew Peter <survivedsushi(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > Shouldn't >= also return Carols records since she
> > contains records GREATER THAN 10000?
>
> You seem to be reading the construct backwards.
>
> x >= ALL (array)
>
> is true if x >= every member of the array. This is
> clearly false
> for x = 10000 and array = {20000, 25000, 25000,
> 25000} ... in fact,
> x isn't >= any of those members.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-17 18:56:03 | Re: Planner regression in 8.0.x ? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-17 18:50:39 | Re: searching array |