Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Nicholas Allen <nallen@freenet.co.uk>
To: Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
Subject: Re: Possible bug in Postgres? Followup to "How do you select from a
	table until a condition is met?"
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:40:49 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.1
Cc: Dmitry Tkach <dmitry@openratings.com>, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
References: <200302121910.38232.nallen@freenet.co.uk>
	<200302122321.18463.nallen@freenet.co.uk>
	<20030213021907.GA2561@wolff.to>
In-Reply-To: <20030213021907.GA2561@wolff.to>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200302131040.49257.nallen@freenet.co.uk>

But I'm not returning the surnames. I just execute this query (sorry I forg=
ot=20
to put it in my last email):

select count(*) FROM vu_tbl_user_all_s WHERE s_surname < 'Asurname' or=20
(s_surname =3D 'Asurname' and s_alias <=3D 'CISX' and s_loginid <=3D 'Login=
id8')=20
ORDER BY s_surname, s_loginid;

So all I am returning is the count right? If I execute the query using *=20
instead of count(*) to actually see the rows it returns the rows as expecte=
d=20
upto the row I was interested in. I would assume if postgres can execute a=
=20
query to give me row data it should also be able to execute the query and=
=20
count the rows without actually giving me the row data when I use count(*).=
=20

I have tried this on MySQL and it works just not on Postgres so it doesn't=
=20
seem to be something I am doing wrong. Which is why I thought it must be a=
=20
bug in Postgres.=20

Am I not missing something here. Is there something wrong with the syntax o=
f=20
the above query?

Thjanks again for your help! I really appreciate it.


On Thursday 13 Feb 2003 3:19 am, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 23:21:18 +0100,
>
>   Nicholas Allen <nallen@freenet.co.uk> wrote:
> > However, if I try to count the records using the count(*) function I get
> > the following error.
> >
> > ERROR:  Attribute vu_tbl_user_all_s.s_surname must be GROUPed or used in
> > an aggregate function
> >
> > Surely, if postgres can execute the query it should also be able to cou=
nt
> > the rows that would be returned in the query? Is this a bug in Postgres
> > and is there a work around? I am using Postgres 7.3.
>
> If you are using count you probably don't want to be returning surnames,
> just the count.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html