I'll probably go by using 3 queries and putting them in a transaction.
Thanks
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:38 PM, David Johnston <polobo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dorian Hoxha wrote
I would not bother trying to do it in a single SQL statement but each query> Hi,
>
> So i have (table where data will be read) :
> CREATE TABLE data (vid,cid,pid,number);
>
> Tables where data will be writen/updated:
>
> CREATE TABLE pid_top_vids (pid, vid[])
> CREATE TABLE pid_top_cids (pid, cid[])
> CREATE TABLE cid_top_vids (cid, vid[])
>
> I need to , possibly in 1 query, this will run once in a while:
> Get top(10) vids , sorted by 'number',grouped by pid and update the row in
> TABLE(pid_top_vids).
>
> Get top(10) vids, sorted by 'number', grouped by cid and update the row in
> TABLE(cid_top_vids).
>
> Get top(10) cids, sorted by 'number', where number is the SUM() of each
> vid
> GROUP_BY(cid) and update the row in TABLE (cid_top_vids);
>
> So, get data, create sorted array, and update the rows (they exist, so
> only
> the arrays have to be updated).
>
> Possible ?
> Thanks
is possible, and fairly basic, using UPDATE with a FROM clause containing
the desired sub-query.
David J.
--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Complex-sql-limit-for-each-group-by-arrays-updates-tp5780554p5780599.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
