davidrw 2005-08-07 16:03:24-04 jZed (or anyone) did you see 481726 and replies? Any reason that a + "GROUP BY" sql statement wouldn't work w/DBD::CSV ? bart 2005-08-07 16:05:53-04 Because it didn't get implemented? castaway 2005-08-07 16:06:22-04 always a good reason ;) davidrw 2005-08-07 16:08:10-04 not implemented? doh! is that a guess or a fact? davidrw 2005-08-07 16:08:59-04 davidrw goes to skim DBD::CSV docs for known bugs/limitations davidrw 2005-08-07 16:10:24-04 davidrw doesn't find anything obvious in DBD::CSV or DBD::File pod Zaxo 2005-08-07 16:12:43-04 since there isn't a db daemon managing things, constructs like tha +t have to be written from scratch in DBD::CSV castaway 2005-08-07 16:13:25-04 right Corion 2005-08-07 16:13:41-04 Hmmm. "Group By" would likely be a hash filter sitting between the + row-scanner and the aggregator function(s) Corion 2005-08-07 16:14:03-04 ... so it "shouldn't be hard". But then, what do I know about DBDs + :) davidrw 2005-08-07 16:14:24-04 hmm.. true. davidrw 2005-08-07 16:15:15-04 i wonder if any other non-db-daemon DBD:: modules implement GROUP +BY? Zaxo 2005-08-07 16:16:32-04 Berkeley might, but I don't know Corion 2005-08-07 16:17:55-04 davidrw: SQLite does. :) davidrw 2005-08-07 16:18:42-04 ah. y, i knew that -- i use it a lot :) davidrw 2005-08-07 16:18:52-04 it's been a slow lazy sunday ...
In reply to Re^7: Combine data in table
by davidrw
in thread Combine data in table
by DrAxeman
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |