Nis Jørgensen wrote: > If you can't wait, you are probably better off working around the > problem. Standard solution is to do: > > UPDATE master SET m2 = -m2; > UPDATE master SET m2 = -m2+1; > > or something similar. Would something like UPDATE master set m2 = master2.m2 FROM ( SELECT m2 +1 FROM master m WHERE m.master_id = master.master_id ORDER BY m2 DESC ) master2 work? I think it might be faster (and possibly cause less index bloat) than doing two consequent updates. Haven't tested this though... -- Alban Hertroys alban@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx magproductions b.v. T: ++31(0)534346874 F: ++31(0)534346876 M: I: www.magproductions.nl A: Postbus 416 7500 AK Enschede // Integrate Your World // ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
