i will think more abt this issue
and will discuss.
regds
mallah.
On Friday 07 March 2003 12:10 pm, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote:
> > On Friday 07 March 2003 11:41 am, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > > On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote:
> > > > Tomasz did you notice the two queries are totally differet on
> > > > different tables?
> > >
> > > A count() on a non-grouped table returns 1 row.
> > >
> > > A grouped table returns 1 row per group. If there are no groups, no
> > > rows are returned. If the groups are filtered by a having clause, it
> > > might also return no rows.
> >
> > True the second query does not return any row.
> > even in first case no rows are returned.
> >
> > where is the difference?
>
> I don't think I understand the question.
>
> select userid from users where userid=-1
> returns 1 row for each row the where clause returns true
> and 0 rows if there are none.
>
> select count(*) from users where userid=-1
> returns 1 row (it's not a grouped table)
>
> select count(*) from users where userid=-1 group by userid
> returns 1 row if there is at least 1 row having userid=-1
> or 0 rows otherwise (either there is a group or there isn't)
>
> select count(*) from users where userid=-1 group by userid
> having userid!=-1
> should return 0 rows because even if there is a group it'll fail the
> having clause.
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
--
Regds
Mallah
----------------------------------------
Rajesh Kumar Mallah,
Project Manager (Development)
Infocom Network Limited, New Delhi
phone: +91(11)6152172 (221) (L) ,9811255597 (M)
Visit http://www.trade-india.com ,
India's Leading B2B eMarketplace.