fenway

Agreed -- I would have said "easily scales to millions of rows". After all, facebook uses it.

Well, you haven't explicitly listed all of your fields -- so please do -- and I'll give you suggestions accordingly.

If they're actually different -- as in they have different fields -- then sure. Otherwise, add a "type" column, and your problem goes away.

That kind of order is up to you -- you can list two columns in the ORDER BY clause -- but perhaps scripting this in PHP will be more flexible.

First, use IN -- WHERE user_Id IN '#value1',''#value2',''#value3') Second, index choice is highly dependent on multiple usage scenarios -- in this case, user_Id would be a good choice, assuming this style represents a major percentage of the queries you're running on this table.

That's a rather bold statement -- but for millions of rows, it probably doesn't matter.

Yeah, but don't use ZEROFILL. If you want your output to be left-padding with 0's, php can help you. Don't corrupt your data.

I'm not sure why you have multiple values being passed here... what does each one represent?

I never said any such thing. What's frustrating is that I'm not having a discussion with you -- I'm having a discussion with your "theories" -- and that's just down-right unpleasant. Besides, I've tried everything in my power to explain to you my point of view "rationally" -- but since you dismiss all of my claims outright, since my experience isn't sufficient for you to consider, I have nothing left to say. I won't derive any benefit from trying to get you to see how things work in the real-world -- I don't think I'll succeed -- so I'll save for efforts for the rest of the users here, who might actually choose to listen. Of, I entirely agree -- explanations + solutions are preferred to solutions alone; but not to theoretical hand-waving, smoke & mirrors. If you're feeling discouraged, I can't help you -- that's not my field of expertise -- I'm just trying to suggest that there are various ways of being helpful, and confusion isn't one of them. At any rate, I'm exhausted by my ongoing attempts at rational explanations with you -- I will no longer contribute to any thread in which you have posted . Feel free to lecture the general public about theory to your heart's content. I'm done.

@ebmigue: we're really trying to have productive discussions with you. But, for some unknown reason, you reject any and all of our opinions just because they cannot be "verified" -- but you expect us to take your "claims" seriously. That's not how a discussion works -- everyone is on equal footing -- no one should cry foul, or wield theory as a magic proof of validity. When you said "I get it. You choose tools according to your needs and purpose." -- I thought that this discussion would come to a fruitful end. But yet to don't seem to be able to extrapolate from a hammer (tool #1) to a database (tool #2). At this point, the OP's thread has been severely hijacked -- remember, the initial comments & remarks were on-topic -- so I'm going to close this thread in due time. For all we know, the OP didn't even get a solution and has abandoned their request. If you'd like to have a discussion on your "theories", then perhaps start your own thread instead.

A two-table JOIN and an ORDER BY clause should do the trick.

Displaying the results of outside the scope of the DB.

In certain circumstances, I entirely agree -- the parser is far too forgiving and lets novice users walk down the primrose path without so much as a warning. DISTINCT is mean to remove duplicate rows -- but that obscures the intent of the query in ways that GROUP BY does not. I'm not sure why you keep feeling the need to couch all of your statements with theoretical arguments -- either you agree or you disagree. I don't care if some theory agrees with me or not -- this isn't a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and no one needs to provide written evidence of their opinions & experience.

I'll have to put my moderator hat on here, folks -- let's keep the name-calling to the schoolyards, not the forums.[quote author=ebmigue link=topic=338788.msg1600394#msg1600394 date=1311628842] Yes. It is a defective calculator. And how exactly will it be "pretty obvious"? How will you exactly know when "its results [are] wrong"? Only when you know arithmetic. Only when you know theory. Nobody can deny that. Sure -- I can deny that, rather easily. Let's pretend I use my faulty calculator unknowingly, and use 2+2=5 in my "tool". Sooner or later, something bad will happen, and it will be plainly obvious. It won't be a direct result of theory, but rather an empirical observation that just isn't right, or is inconsistent with previous outcomes, or someone else's outcome. Now, since calculators are quite common instruments, I can just get another one -- or ask someone else -- and it will be immediately apparent that my device is broken. Get a new one, and ta-da -- everything works again. See? No need for a theoretical groundwork. Since we're all going around in circles here, I'll give you the option of responding -- and hopefully shedding some new light on this discussion -- before I lock this thread in the hopes of dousing the flame war that has/will ensue/d.

@wildteen88: long time no see!

Reserved keywords are a no-no.

I'll tell you why I don't like DISTINCT -- it hides the fact that there's an opportunity for index usage.

Again, anyone can choose whether to heed my advice or not.

I generalize when I feel it's appropriate -- others can "think on their own" when they read my advice. I don't have to censor my opinions. And you're welcome to refute them -- but arguing with my right to generalize isn't productive.

You asked me how I infer things -- I told you "through experience" -- that has nothing to do with authority. Sounds like you're the one taking it personally. You can give any one ideas -- and if that's how you interpreted the OP's request, then so be it.

That is a baseless statement. Really? Now what if the user is given a defective calculator, one that does 2 + 2 = 5. Now, since he is ignorant of theory, of arithmetic, he accepts what the calculator says: 2 + 2 = 5. What do you call that? Is not that "doomed to fail?" Claiming that it is not is just absurd considering that we are IT professionals here: practitioners of the direct effects of science - technology. No -- I call that a defective calculator. And it's going to be pretty obvious once I try to use its results that it's wrong.

To be clear: those 20+ years are *working* experience. Not that quantity counts, here -- I'm merely stating that I've been around the block enough times to know that there is truth to what I represent.

That is a baseless statement.

That's true -- but irrelevant.

I was able to infer that because that's the nature of these forums -- again, after 14K+ posts, let's call it a "working theory". The OP was asking for "favourites" -- implying one that actually worked with PostgreSQL -- and was asking for experiences pertaining to such solutions. Besides, the entire point of such frameworks is precisely to provide an abstract level of representation -- granted, not all at the DB level -- and if you think that your framework is better than everyone else's, that's fine -- but again, not exactly an unbiased opinion, especially without full disclosure.