Guetierrez: Xgc: looks the same as my output?
Rowlison: BlaDe; I thought you did not like that result?
Maritato: BlaDe: Back up a little. Remove the order adjustment in the left panel. Debug the select first.
Althaus: Xgc: the result is fine except it has skipped 2
Sanfilippo: BlaDe: You need to debug the left hand panel. You can’t do that practically after it’s done.
Ganesh: BlaDe: Are you saying you didn’t ask a new question?
Lederman: Xgc: well I mean I fixed the original bug with your help adding the subselect
Atherton: Now i’m asking why it starts from 3 in sort and leaves out 2
Deveja: BlaDe: That’s easy. Look at the result before and after each operation in the left panel that touches sort.
Molinaro: BlaDe: You can easily do that by creating a new table to hold each result: CREATE TABLE t1 SELECT .; stuff . CREATE TABLE t2 SELECT .;
Njie: BlaDe: Now in the right hand panel, select from each of those tables.
Palms: BlaDe: Did you do that? Do you see the issue now?
Macksoud: BlaDe: Do you want another hint?
Brune: BlaDe: Progress? It’s a simple issue.
Terp: Xgc: sorry had to jump on a call
Behne: Xgc: before I do, is this the way you’d recommend going? is there a better way entirely?
Casement: I just want reordering of items in a list, basically
Romagnoli: I fear it could become inefficient with a large # of rows
Rojo: BlaDe: I think addressing your current approach is fine for now. We can discuss alternatives later.
Semke: BlaDe: It’s somewhat unusual to keep updating a table to fix an order column. But that is certainly one way to do it.
Hrobsky: Xgc: http://sqlfiddle.com/#!9/d155dc/2
Lenyard: Xgc: just duplicating it, for some reason 2 is skipped but 3 isn’t = with a0 based index the same happens: http://sqlfiddle.com/#!9/7969b/1
Mcgonigal: BlaDe: The same mistake. Review this fix: http://sqlfiddle.com/#!9/8d4e2/1
Leonette: You made the mistake in both inserts.
Mister: Sorry. That was the mistake.
Ketchem: Hey I’m having trouble filtering on joins. I’m not sure I’m doing this the right way http://pastebin.com/uEyTEYBN
Bibee: Don’t mean to have a full on solution, but would like some pointers on how to properly tackle this what’s expected and what is actually returned in the pastebin
Brittman: And tt.taxonomy LIKE ‘author’ AND terms.name LIKE ‘%name%’ or tt.taxonomy LIKE ‘portal’ AND terms.name LIKE ‘%portal%’
Brittman: You also want an ORDER BY and LIMIT generally
Brittman: You want to avoid LIKE ‘%foo’
Payna: Brittman indeed it’s just for testing purposes
Sumpter: Plauclair: The intersection of the results is all you get. If the results do not intersect, you get 0 rows.
Ploss: Plauclair: AND is like an intersection. Each row must match both terms to be in the result.
Grave: Xgc: it’s my understanding that they do, which is why I don’t get it
Stritzke: Plauclair: Except the result is correct.
Plassmann: Wait. when I put an OR there are actually 132 rows returned
Nemecek: Plauclair: sqlfiddle.com, with data that shows the behavior. It’ll be obviousl to anyone who tries to help.
Kusnic: Plauclair: You’re confused by what x AND y OR z means.
Fedak: Plauclair: Remember, you have 3 terms in the WHERE clause.
Delarosa: Plauclair: You probably wanted: WHERE x AND y OR z
Lunde: Plauclair: For your last test, that is.
Turvey: Plauclair: If you’re using comma separated lists in those columns, that’s a bad sign.
Aldas: No they’re all strings and fixed values
Ero: I wouldn’t dare doing this
Brookhouse: AND OR gives me 46 results