Billy Verreynne wrote:
> josephcurwen_at_despammed.com (curwen) wrote:
>
>
>>I'm in deep struggle with query from a huge table:
>
>
> Huge is relative. :-)
>
>
>>what I've got is a lot of records like:
>>
>>_______________
>>numb fk1
>>_______________
>>1231456 61
>>1231456 62
>>1231456 63
>>1231456 61
>>
>>from my view I should only get the last record:
>>__________
>>123456 61
>
>
> Use a GROUP BY the foriegn key and select MAX (the last) number. E.g.
>
> SELECT
> MAX(numb) "NUMB",
> fk1
> FROM relatively_huge_table
> GROUP BY fk1
>
>
>>last has to be intended as inserting order, there's not sorting defined on data
>>the table has also a progressive id generated by a sequence..
>
>
> To add to what Daniel said.. in a blunt way using nice friendly
> letters... empty your cup of preconceptions of what you think a RDBMS
> is and then fill it with some RTFM'ing.
>
>
>>I've tried the the following , but doesn't work:
>>
>>select distinct numb,fk1
>>from <table>
>
>
> It does work - just not the way you think. :-)
>
> You are aksing for distinct/unique values - for *both* number and
> foreign key. Thus you will get:
> 123456 61
> 123457 61
>
> Both these are unique.
>
>
> --
> Billy
Actually, given his sample data, I believe he would get
1231456 61
1231456 62
1231456 63
since each ROW is distinct.
--
Ed Prochak
running http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/
netiquette http://www.psg.com/emily.html
--
"Two roads diverged in a wood and I
I took the one less travelled by
and that has made all the difference."
robert frost
Received on Thu Jan 29 2004 - 17:37:46 CST
