Re: Another SQL Puzzle

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #214,331 by takicutie 7/12/05 12:07:06 AM Reply	Re: Another SQL Puzzle Well the have given their answers. One requires a functional answer, the decode answer the easiest solution if your using Oracle.. But if your using SQL server this simple SQL statement will do. (SELECT column_A, 1 AS bar FROM TBL WHERE column_A > 0) UNION ALL (SELECT column_A, 0 AS bar FROM TBL WHERE column_A = 0) Taki Cuevas
Post #214,428 by SpiceWare 7/12/05 10:30:23 AM Reply	hmm - decode won't work afterall upon rereading the puzzle, the decode solution wouldn't work. The requirement is > 0 turns into 1, which implies <= 0 turns to 0. The decode solution would have turned anything <> 0 into 1. It'll work if the data can only contain non-negative values, but we probably shouldn't make that assumption even though the sample doesn't include negative values. Based on that, your solution would work with a minor change of <= 0 in the 2nd select's where clause. Also welcome to the group! How'd you find us? Darrell Spice, Jr. [link\|http://spiceware.org/gallery/ArtisticOverpass\|Artistic Overpass]\n[link\|http://www.spiceware.org/\|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
Post #215,106 by tablizer 7/16/05 1:26:43 AM Reply	Nope, no negative in my case Life could be simpler if they only standardized an "iif" function. SELECT iif(b > 0, 1, 0) AS result FROM foo It has the parameters: iif([expression],[value if true],[value if false]) ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #215,107 by ChrisR 7/16/05 2:30:11 AM Reply	It has been standardized. It's called [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=208883\|CASE].

Simple SQL look-up turns out hairy - (tablizer) - (51) - May 26, 2005, 03:12:19 PM EDT

I awalys hated SQL based batch updates - (broomberg) - (12) - May 26, 2005, 03:16:23 PM EDT

Let's bring back FoxPro! - (tablizer) - (11) - May 26, 2005, 03:25:54 PM EDT

Silly person you - (broomberg) - (10) - May 26, 2005, 04:06:28 PM EDT

Preach! -NT - (drewk) - May 26, 2005, 04:33:17 PM EDT

63.472% Disagree - (tablizer) - May 27, 2005, 09:02:12 PM EDT

Real world example - (broomberg) - (7) - June 21, 2005, 07:36:14 PM EDT

I am not sure what your point is - (tablizer) - (6) - June 21, 2005, 08:02:51 PM EDT

It's been done already - (broomberg) - (5) - June 21, 2005, 08:11:42 PM EDT

Or PL/SQL, or TransactSQL, or... -NT - (admin) - (4) - June 21, 2005, 09:10:53 PM EDT

Nah - (broomberg) - (2) - June 21, 2005, 11:13:03 PM EDT

I didn't say they were the best. - (admin) - (1) - June 21, 2005, 11:16:54 PM EDT

I know. I do. - (broomberg) - June 21, 2005, 11:20:25 PM EDT

I find PL/SQL and Transact/SQL too verbose -NT - (tablizer) - June 22, 2005, 01:03:50 AM EDT

COALESCE - (drewk) - May 26, 2005, 03:30:37 PM EDT

Re: Simple SQL look-up turns out hairy - (JayMehaffey) - May 26, 2005, 03:52:18 PM EDT

Simpler SQL - (ChrisR) - (2) - May 26, 2005, 04:01:40 PM EDT

My 1999 book implies UPDATE....FROM is not standard -NT - (tablizer) - (1) - May 27, 2005, 09:06:38 PM EDT

Probably so... - (ChrisR) - May 27, 2005, 09:57:05 PM EDT

And you're surprised because what? -NT - (pwhysall) - May 26, 2005, 05:23:28 PM EDT

Another SQL Puzzle - (tablizer) - (31) - May 27, 2005, 09:15:39 PM EDT

Re: Another SQL Puzzle - (ChrisR) - (25) - May 27, 2005, 09:50:17 PM EDT

Hmmm. Standard? -NT - (tablizer) - (24) - May 31, 2005, 01:18:06 AM EDT

No such thing in SQL world - dialects everywhere -NT - (tuberculosis) - (22) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:44:10 AM EDT

Good point. Standard != Common_Implementation - (tablizer) - (21) - June 2, 2005, 08:41:49 PM EDT

Lemme guess... - (ben_tilly) - (20) - June 2, 2005, 09:24:29 PM EDT

The best way to fix non-standard implementations.... - (ChrisR) - June 2, 2005, 10:27:30 PM EDT

I had a look. - (static) - (13) - June 2, 2005, 11:25:00 PM EDT

Fish in a barrel -NT - (ben_tilly) - June 3, 2005, 12:27:31 AM EDT

Please be more specific -NT - (tablizer) - (11) - June 20, 2005, 08:55:05 PM EDT

Horse corpse - meet Mr. Stick -NT - (broomberg) - (1) - June 20, 2005, 09:09:47 PM EDT

IOW, guilty until proven innocent. IranWeThey - (tablizer) - June 20, 2005, 09:20:14 PM EDT

Sorry, I've got real SQL work to do. -NT - (static) - (8) - June 20, 2005, 09:44:01 PM EDT

SQL sucks (as a relational language) - (tablizer) - (7) - June 21, 2005, 02:18:03 AM EDT

Perhaps you need to get out of the design and... - (ChrisR) - (6) - June 21, 2005, 10:39:45 AM EDT

Some convergence perhaps - (tablizer) - (5) - June 21, 2005, 03:06:20 PM EDT

sounds like you would be happy doing MAS90 -NT - (boxley) - (2) - June 21, 2005, 03:20:32 PM EDT

Wow. That's harsh. ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1) - June 21, 2005, 04:35:39 PM EDT

its straight forward, lucrative and he enjoys the language -NT - (boxley) - June 21, 2005, 06:03:18 PM EDT

You are writing a language IN xBase? - (broomberg) - (1) - June 21, 2005, 06:53:22 PM EDT

I am sort of pushing off parsing issues to something else -NT - (tablizer) - June 21, 2005, 08:04:39 PM EDT

WRONGO! - (tablizer) - (4) - June 20, 2005, 09:16:28 PM EDT

Re: WRONGO! - (JayMehaffey) - (3) - June 20, 2005, 10:19:39 PM EDT

Prefix != "procedural" - (tablizer) - (2) - June 21, 2005, 02:04:44 AM EDT

I wasn't talking aobut it's notation - (JayMehaffey) - (1) - June 22, 2005, 11:36:38 PM EDT

Variables can be semantic "references", not necess. storage - (tablizer) - June 23, 2005, 07:35:24 PM EDT

CASE is the ANSI/ISO-standard - (ChrisR) - May 31, 2005, 11:40:51 AM EDT

Easy if you have decode - (SpiceWare) - May 27, 2005, 09:47:22 PM EDT

Re: Another SQL Puzzle - (takicutie) - (3) - July 12, 2005, 12:07:06 AM EDT

hmm - decode won't work afterall - (SpiceWare) - (2) - July 12, 2005, 10:30:23 AM EDT

Nope, no negative in my case - (tablizer) - (1) - July 16, 2005, 01:26:43 AM EDT

It has been standardized. - (ChrisR) - July 16, 2005, 02:30:11 AM EDT

Boy, isn't that true about damn near any subject?
134 ms