Turkbear wrote:
> "Mark C. Stock" <mcstockX_at_Xenquery .com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Turkbear" <john.g_at_dot.spamfree.com> wrote in message
>>news:v5kovv4ifip3c7v8teaojjv2fooe3si28l_at_4ax.com...
>>| harve_projects_at_yahoo.com (HRR) wrote:
>>|
>>| >Hi,
>>| >
>>| >I have the following table
>>| >
>>| >1001 2 3
>>| >1001 3 5
>>| >1001 5 7
>>| >1002 5 4
>>| >1002 6 2
>>| >
>>| >I need to get a result
>>| >
>>| >1001 2 3
>>| >1002 6 2
>>| >
>>| >How is it possible ?
>>| Column names would have helped..assume a, b and c
>>|
>>| Select a,min(b),min(c) from sometable
>>| group by a;
>>|
>>|
>>
>>not exactly -- your query returns
>>
>>1001 2 3
>>1002 5 2
>>
>>either there's a typo by the OP, or, if OP really wants the row with the
>>minimum value of 'c', you need to do a pairwise compare with a subquery (see
>>my reply to the same OP in comp.databases.oracle)
>>
>>-- mcs
>>
>
> Yep..
> ( The results from my query are, in fact, the MIns for both b and c for each a, but not the row that has the min c value -
> because it does not have the min b)
> I'm not sure if it is a typo, but if not, then the logic is a little strange:
> Get the minimum b and minimum c when a = 1001 but Max(b),Min(c) when 1002????
> I assumed ( yes, I know) then the OP only cared about the values not the rows the values were in.
How can you guys be proposing solutions when the OP never defined the
problem? Reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon where the boss says start
coding while I go get the requirements.
--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
Received on Thu Jan 08 2004 - 09:47:51 CST
