|
|
Posted by robert on 07/04/22 11:45
and...you'd want to put the standard inline sql formatting *back in*...each
column named and on a seperate line, delimiting columns aligned, table names
aliased and aligned, reserved words in caps, conditions aligned (=, !=, IN,
NOT IN, etc.)...regardless of select, insert, update, etc.
and that's not just *my* pet-peave. the more complex the query, view, proc,
or udf the more the differences are noticed and appreciated.
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:h8qdnUa8fetfl9jZnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
| robert wrote:
| > | The solution is:
| > |
| > | select grad_pbroj, Naziv, COUNT(*) as brojac from smjestaj left join
grad
| > on
| > | grad.grad=smjestaj.grad_pbroj group by grad_pbroj order by grad_pbroj
ASC
| >
| >
| > i don't think so...that should cough up a nasty error as "naziv" is not
| > handled in the group by clause nor is it part of an aggrigate
function...and
| > that's just me eye-balling it for .5 seconds.
| >
| > btw...people who DONT format their inline sql should be shot! which is
more
| > manageable, the above or:
| >
| > SELECT s.grad_pbroj ,
| > s.Naziv ,
| > COUNT(*) brojac
| > FROM smjestaj s
| > LEFT JOIN grad g ON
| > g.grad = s.grad_pbroj
| > GROUP BY s.grad_pbroj ,
| > s.Naziv
| > ORDER BY s.grad_pbroj ASC
| >
| >
| > ** and if this query is to return the number of duplicates, then there
| > should either be a where or having clause that only returns a row if the
| > count is > 1.
| >
| > but that's just me following real-world, professional standards. the
former
| > should just be all on one line for christ' sake.
| >
| >
|
| Close - you would need a HAVING clause:
|
| SELECT s.grad_pbroj, s.Naziv, COUNT(*) AS brojac
| FROM smjestaj s
| LEFT JOIN grad g ON g.grad = s.grad_pbroj
| GROUP BY s.grad_pbroj,s.Naziv
| HAVING COUNT(*) > 1
| ORDER BY s.grad_pbroj ASC
|
| --
| ==================
| Remove the "x" from my email address
| Jerry Stuckle
| JDS Computer Training Corp.
| jstucklex@attglobal.net
| ==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|