[development] Do not let postgresql hold back great patches
larry at garfieldtech.com
Tue Dec 4 00:40:12 UTC 2007
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 18:42:56 -0500, "Khalid Baheyeldin" <kb at 2bits.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2007 1:49 AM, Larry Garfield <larry at garfieldtech.com> wrote:
>> As for in-SQL operations on the date value, like MONTH() or YEAR() in
>> If someone has an idea for those that doesn't involve regexing every
>> would dearly love to hear it. :-)
> The current use of UNIX timestamp is a compromise, and has its issues, but
> still allows in-SQL operations.
> In-SQL operations is very very important. Going to ActiveRecord type of
> abstraction without the ability to do aggregate operations on the data is
> just not an option.
> Without in-SQL, doing things like:
> select n.nid, n.type, n.title, count(*) as num_votes, avg(value) as
> from votingapi_vote v inner join node n on content_id = n.nid where n.type
> 'image' and n.created between unix_timestamp('2007-11-01 00:00:00') and
> unix_timestamp('2007-11-30 23:59:59') group by v.content_id having
>> 1 order by avg_vote desc, num_votes desc limit 20;
> Would be impossible, or would entail very expensive full table scans.
Except that unix_timestamp() is MySQL-specific, isn't it?
More information about the development