On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Jan Wieck wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> > someone notice anything wrong with this query? :) *slap forehead*
> >
> > explain
> > SELECT distinct s.gid, s.created , geo_distance(pd.location, '(-90.3690233918754,38.7788148984854)')
> > FROM status s, personal_data pd, relationship_wanted rw , personal_ethnicity pe , personal_religion pr ,
personal_bodytypepb
> > WHERE s.active AND s.status != 0
> > AND (s.gid = pd.gid AND pd.gender = 0)
> > AND (s.gid = rw.gid AND rw.gender = 1)
> > AND geo_distance( pd.location, '(-90.3690233918754,38.7788148984854)' ) <= 75
> > ORDER BY geo_distance( pd.location, '(-90.3690233918754,38.7788148984854)'), s.created desc;
>
> What's the purpose of joining it with "pb"?
if the proper clause was in place, ooddles of purpose ... it wasn't until
after I upgraded to the newest code that Tom put the fix in for, and it
was *still* causing problems, that I clued into the fact that the AND
clause that was supposed to be associated with 'pb' *wasn't* there ...
For the whole time we were debugging this, none of us clued into it :)
