Thread: storing record-array in varchar?
hi list
how can something like this be achieved:
UPDATE mytable SET m_list = (SELECT DISTINCT s_id FROM sometable WHERE s_id > 6000) WHERE m_id = 10;
the field m_list would then hold something like '6001, 6002, 6003, 7000', which ideally i could later use for something like SELECT * FROM sometable JOIN mytable WHERE s_id IN m_list AND m_id = 10;
field m_list would idealy be a varchar if possible...
thanks,
thomas
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:11:40AM +0100, me@alternize.com wrote: > how can something like this be achieved: > > UPDATE mytable SET m_list = (SELECT DISTINCT s_id FROM sometable > WHERE s_id > 6000) WHERE m_id = 10; In 7.4 and later, if m_list were an array then you could do this: UPDATE mytable SET m_list = ARRAY(SELECT ...) WHERE ... > the field m_list would then hold something like '6001, 6002, 6003, 7000', > which ideally i could later use for something like SELECT * FROM sometable > JOIN mytable WHERE s_id IN m_list AND m_id = 10; Again, if m_list were an array then you could do something like this: SELECT * FROM sometable AS s JOIN mytable AS m ON s.s_id = ANY(m.m_list) WHERE m_id = 10; > field m_list would idealy be a varchar if possible... Why? It could be done but an array seems more suitable for what you're describing. Is there a reason you want m_id | m_list ------+----------------------- 10 | {6001,6002,6003,7000} instead of the more conventional m_id | s_id ------+------ 10 | 6001 10 | 6002 10 | 6003 10 | 7000 ? -- Michael Fuhr
hi michael thanks for your answer. >> field m_list would idealy be a varchar if possible... > > Why? It could be done but an array seems more suitable for what > you're describing. yes. as far as i know, the ms odbc layer does not understand array-fields, at least not asp3 where the db in question is used ;-) if the field never has to be outputed to asp your solution will work. i'll try to implement it, thanks again. - thomas