|
|||
|
Ben Finney, 01.12.2009 02:08:
> Interesting. But you've changed it from a relational to a non-relational > result (some tuples now contain nulls). Well that was the initial question, wasn't it? Surpress the repating values. And it is the same solution which I have already posted, just without the join (but the basic idea and technique ist the same) It also had some other errors > (referencing names that weren't defined). I changed the names so that they would not conflict with reserved words. I rather rename columns than create unnecessary sub-selects ![]() Putting the partition into the WINDOW clause at the end will only work for Postgres, not for Oracle or DB2 (they don't support that). An for just a single usage of the window it doesn't add to the clarity in my opinion. But formatting (and the usage of unnecessary sub-select) is a matter of personal style! Regards Thomas |
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Popular Tags in the Forum |
| oracle, request, sql |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Check Constraint Not Working | jimmyb | Newsgroup comp.databases.oracle.server | 6 | 08-18-2009 04:01 AM |
| Tested 11g OLTP compression and found rather serious issue | tamkatten@gmail.com | Newsgroup comp.databases.oracle.server | 9 | 08-11-2009 10:53 AM |
| Administration. | Markus Gronotte | Newsgroup comp.databases.oracle.misc | 5 | 06-02-2009 01:22 PM |
| Re: Question on proc sql | Anindya Mozumdar | Newsgroup comp.soft-sys.sas | 0 | 06-15-2008 02:24 PM |
| Re: A SAS patch changed the way PROC SQL worked and changed the | Venky Chakravarthy | Newsgroup comp.soft-sys.sas | 0 | 12-05-2006 07:03 PM |