SEO

So I'm currently designing a database for a web site and intra net for my
campuses student radio. Since I'm not getting paid for this and I'm doing
this in my free time I kinda want to take my time and have the system setup
as "perfectly" as any one college student can.

I'm currently debating on how I want to store all the songs in the system.
Namely I'm not quite sure which way will eek the most performance out of
MySQL.

My plan so far is quite normalized, a songs table with 1:1 relationships
with an Albums, Artists, and Genres table.

The big benefits I see from this is when I'm building the intra net
application I'll want to pull just all of the artists or all of the albums,
etc. However I feel like I'm encountering issues with where to store the
"year" field of an mp3 (do I want it on the album, song, or both) along with
issues like printing everything out at once.

The only other way I can think of thats relatively efficient is to have the
singular songs table and have indexes on albums, artists, and genres.

My question, more out of curiosity than necessity, is which of these would
be more efficient (given that I'll be using the InnoDB storage engine)?

Other relevant facts include it'll be using the latest, stable release of
MySQL 5 and I'll be developing in PHP5 (through CakePHP's database
abstraction layer).

--
Thanks and Gig 'Em!
Daniel Cousineau
http://www.terminalfuture.com/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dcousineau
dcousineau@gmail.com

I think you're approaching this from the wrong angle. You'll want to put
the data at the highest level at which it changes.

i.e. If every song on an album is always the same year, put it at the
album level, however, if it changes from song to song on a particular
album, then you want it at the song level.

Year wouldn't ever apply to artist I don't think, unless they're truly a
one hit wonder.

-Micah

On 04/02/2007 09:14 PM, Daniel Cousineau wrote:
> So I'm currently designing a database for a web site and intra net for my
> campuses student radio. Since I'm not getting paid for this and I'm doing
> this in my free time I kinda want to take my time and have the system
> setup
> as "perfectly" as any one college student can.
>
> I'm currently debating on how I want to store all the songs in the
> system.
> Namely I'm not quite sure which way will eek the most performance out of
> MySQL.
>
> My plan so far is quite normalized, a songs table with 1:1 relationships
> with an Albums, Artists, and Genres table.
>
> The big benefits I see from this is when I'm building the intra net
> application I'll want to pull just all of the artists or all of the
> albums,
> etc. However I feel like I'm encountering issues with where to store the
> "year" field of an mp3 (do I want it on the album, song, or both)
> along with
> issues like printing everything out at once.
>
> The only other way I can think of thats relatively efficient is to
> have the
> singular songs table and have indexes on albums, artists, and genres.
>
> My question, more out of curiosity than necessity, is which of these
> would
> be more efficient (given that I'll be using the InnoDB storage engine)?
>
> Other relevant facts include it'll be using the latest, stable release of
> MySQL 5 and I'll be developing in PHP5 (through CakePHP's database
> abstraction layer).
>

Do you really mean 1:1 relationships? A song might have more than one
artist, album, or genre. Could a song have no album at all, such as
something that was released in MP3 format? Also, you might have more than
one version of a song. You might need a separate table for recordings, with
each song having one or more recordings. That would be a good place to keep
the release information, rather than storing it with the song.

The biggest problem would be to figure out how to index the songs,
themselves. I don't have a good suggestion for that off the top of my head.

That all being said, there's no reason I can think of not to normalize the
data.

Regards,

Jerry Schwartz
Global Information Incorporated
195 Farmington Ave.
Farmington, CT 06032

860.674.8796 / FAX: 860.674.8341


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Cousineau [mailto:dcousineau@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 12:15 AM
> To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
> Subject: Joins versus Grouping/Indexing: Normalization Excessive?
>
> So I'm currently designing a database for a web site and
> intra net for my
> campuses student radio. Since I'm not getting paid for this
> and I'm doing
> this in my free time I kinda want to take my time and have
> the system setup
> as "perfectly" as any one college student can.
>
> I'm currently debating on how I want to store all the songs
> in the system.
> Namely I'm not quite sure which way will eek the most
> performance out of
> MySQL.
>
> My plan so far is quite normalized, a songs table with 1:1
> relationships
> with an Albums, Artists, and Genres table.
>
> The big benefits I see from this is when I'm building the intra net
> application I'll want to pull just all of the artists or all
> of the albums,
> etc. However I feel like I'm encountering issues with where
> to store the
> "year" field of an mp3 (do I want it on the album, song, or
> both) along with
> issues like printing everything out at once.
>
> The only other way I can think of thats relatively efficient
> is to have the
> singular songs table and have indexes on albums, artists, and genres.
>
> My question, more out of curiosity than necessity, is which
> of these would
> be more efficient (given that I'll be using the InnoDB
> storage engine)?
>
> Other relevant facts include it'll be using the latest,
> stable release of
> MySQL 5 and I'll be developing in PHP5 (through CakePHP's database
> abstraction layer).
>
> --
> Thanks and Gig 'Em!
> Daniel Cousineau
> http://www.terminalfuture.com/
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dcousineau
> dcousineau@gmail.com
>

I tried the following 2 SQL's and the results are less than satisfactory. The RIGHT join does not show where disposition is NULL. The LEFT join shows dispositions as NULL where they shouldn't be. Also the LEFT join generates more dupes. Any way to fix this?

select cust.first as FIRST, cust.last as LAST, cust.address AS ADDRESS, cust.city as CITY, cust.state as STATE, cust.zip as ZIP, cust.ssn as SSN, disposition.disposition as DISPOSITION, leadSource.source as SOURCE, cust.loanBalance AS LOANBALANCE, cust.currentPayment as CURRENTPAYMENT, cust.newPayment as NEWPAYMENT from cust RIGHT JOIN disposition on (cust.disposition=disposition.id) RIGHT JOIN leadSource on (cust.source=leadSource.id) where agentCode=11 and newPayment > 0 and cust.disposition > 0 order by SOURCE, DISPOSITION

select cust.first as FIRST, cust.last as LAST, cust.address AS ADDRESS, cust.city as CITY, cust.state as STATE, cust.zip as ZIP, cust.ssn as SSN, disposition.disposition as DISPOSITION, leadSource.source as SOURCE, cust.loanBalance AS LOANBALANCE, cust.currentPayment as CURRENTPAYMENT, cust.newPayment as NEWPAYMENT from cust LEFT JOIN disposition on (cust.disposition=disposition.id) LEFT JOIN leadSource on (cust.source=leadSource.id) where agentCode=11 and newPayment > 0 and cust.disposition > 0 order by SOURCE, DISPOSITION

The MYSQL has the following version

mysql Ver 14.7 Distrib 5.0.2-alpha, for pc-linux (i686)

Thanks for your help
Murthy


---------------------------------
Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast
with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.

a left join and a right join are 2 very distinct things... It is not
clear from your text what it is you exactly are going for here but I
doubt that applying either LEFT or RIGHT to ALL of your (many) joins
is going to give it to you. You need to stop and examine the
relationships between the tables in this query and determine which
class of JOIN you will need (and there are more than just these 2).

The description you gave of your results using RIGHT and LEFT
universally are consistent with what I would expect from those types
of joins. I suggest that you read this page very carefully before you
continue:

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/join.html

- michael

On 4/3/07, murthy gandikota <murthy_gandikota@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I tried the following 2 SQL's and the results are less than satisfactory. The RIGHT join does not show where disposition is NULL. The LEFT join shows dispositions as NULL where they shouldn't be. Also the LEFT join generates more dupes. Any way to fix this?
>
> select cust.first as FIRST, cust.last as LAST, cust.address AS ADDRESS, cust.city as CITY, cust.state as STATE, cust.zip as ZIP, cust.ssn as SSN, disposition.disposition as DISPOSITION, leadSource.source as SOURCE, cust.loanBalance AS LOANBALANCE, cust.currentPayment as CURRENTPAYMENT, cust.newPayment as NEWPAYMENT from cust RIGHT JOIN disposition on (cust.disposition=disposition.id) RIGHT JOIN leadSource on (cust.source=leadSource.id) where agentCode=11 and newPayment > 0 and cust.disposition > 0 order by SOURCE, DISPOSITION
>
> select cust.first as FIRST, cust.last as LAST, cust.address AS ADDRESS, cust.city as CITY, cust.state as STATE, cust.zip as ZIP, cust.ssn as SSN, disposition.disposition as DISPOSITION, leadSource.source as SOURCE, cust.loanBalance AS LOANBALANCE, cust.currentPayment as CURRENTPAYMENT, cust.newPayment as NEWPAYMENT from cust LEFT JOIN disposition on (cust.disposition=disposition.id) LEFT JOIN leadSource on (cust.source=leadSource.id) where agentCode=11 and newPayment > 0 and cust.disposition > 0 order by SOURCE, DISPOSITION
>
> The MYSQL has the following version
>
> mysql Ver 14.7 Distrib 5.0.2-alpha, for pc-linux (i686)
>
> Thanks for your help
> Murthy
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast
> with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.


--
- michael dykman
- mdykman@gmail.com

- All models are wrong. Some models are useful.

Hi Mike
Thanks for your input. I read the page before and it caused more confusion.
May be an example would clarify this:

create table `cust` (`ssn` varchar(10), `source` int(3) , `disposition` int(3));
insert into cust (ssn, source, disposition) values ('123456789', 1, 2);
insert into cust (ssn, source, disposition) values ('123456780', 2, 1);
insert into cust (ssn, source, disposition) values ('123456781', NULL, NULL);

create table `source` (`id` int(3), `source` varchar(10));
insert into source(id, source) values (1, 'source1');
insert into source(id,source) values (2, 'source2');

create table `disposition` (`id` int(3), `disposition` varchar(10));
insert into disposition (id, disposition) values (1, 'dispo1');
insert into disposition(id,disposition) values (2, 'dispo2');

Now I run the sql:
select cust.ssn, disposition.disposition, source.source from cust LEFT JOIN source ON (cust.source=source.id) LEFT JOIN disposition ON (cust.disposition=disposition.id)

+-----------+-------------+---------+
| ssn | disposition | source |
+-----------+-------------+---------+
| 123456789 | dispo2 | source1 |
| 123456789 | dispo2 | source1 |
| 123456780 | dispo1 | source2 |
| 123456780 | dispo1 | source2 |
| 123456781 | NULL | NULL |
+-----------+-------------+---------+

I don't want this cos the ssn 123456780 is shown twice

select cust.ssn, disposition.disposition, source.source from cust RIGHT JOIN source ON (cust.source=source.id) RIGHT JOIN disposition ON (cust.disposition=disposition.id)

+-----------+-------------+---------+
| ssn | disposition | source |
+-----------+-------------+---------+
| 123456789 | dispo2 | source1 |
| 123456789 | dispo2 | source1 |
| 123456780 | dispo1 | source2 |
| 123456780 | dispo1 | source2 |
+-----------+-------------+---------+

This has the same problem.

All I want is

+-----------+-------------+---------+
| ssn | disposition | source |
+-----------+-------------+---------+
| 123456789 | dispo2 | source1 |
| 123456780 | dispo1 | source2 |
| 123456781 | NULL | NULL |
+-----------+-------------+---------+

I'd appreciate your help.
Thanks
Murthy
Michael Dykman <mdykman@gmail.com> wrote:
a left join and a right join are 2 very distinct things... It is not
clear from your text what it is you exactly are going for here but I
doubt that applying either LEFT or RIGHT to ALL of your (many) joins
is going to give it to you. You need to stop and examine the
relationships between the tables in this query and determine which
class of JOIN you will need (and there are more than just these 2).

The description you gave of your results using RIGHT and LEFT
universally are consistent with what I would expect from those types
of joins. I suggest that you read this page very carefully before you
continue:

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/join.html

- michael

On 4/3/07, murthy gandikota wrote:
> I tried the following 2 SQL's and the results are less than satisfactory. The RIGHT join does not show where disposition is NULL. The LEFT join shows dispositions as NULL where they shouldn't be. Also the LEFT join generates more dupes. Any way to fix this?
>
> select cust.first as FIRST, cust.last as LAST, cust.address AS ADDRESS, cust.city as CITY, cust.state as STATE, cust.zip as ZIP, cust.ssn as SSN, disposition.disposition as DISPOSITION, leadSource.source as SOURCE, cust.loanBalance AS LOANBALANCE, cust.currentPayment as CURRENTPAYMENT, cust.newPayment as NEWPAYMENT from cust RIGHT JOIN disposition on (cust.disposition=disposition.id) RIGHT JOIN leadSource on (cust.source=leadSource.id) where agentCode=11 and newPayment > 0 and cust.disposition > 0 order by SOURCE, DISPOSITION
>
> select cust.first as FIRST, cust.last as LAST, cust.address AS ADDRESS, cust.city as CITY, cust.state as STATE, cust.zip as ZIP, cust.ssn as SSN, disposition.disposition as DISPOSITION, leadSource.source as SOURCE, cust.loanBalance AS LOANBALANCE, cust.currentPayment as CURRENTPAYMENT, cust.newPayment as NEWPAYMENT from cust LEFT JOIN disposition on (cust.disposition=disposition.id) LEFT JOIN leadSource on (cust.source=leadSource.id) where agentCode=11 and newPayment > 0 and cust.disposition > 0 order by SOURCE, DISPOSITION
>
> The MYSQL has the following version
>
> mysql Ver 14.7 Distrib 5.0.2-alpha, for pc-linux (i686)
>
> Thanks for your help
> Murthy
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast
> with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.


--
- michael dykman
- mdykman@gmail.com

- All models are wrong. Some models are useful.



---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.

Well, trying your example gives me the expected result.

select cust.ssn, disposition.disposition, source.source
from cust LEFT JOIN source ON (cust.source=source.id)
LEFT JOIN disposition ON (cust.disposition=disposition.id);

'123456789', 'dispo2', 'source1'
'123456780', 'dispo1', 'source2'
'123456781', null, null

On Wed, April 4, 2007 00:03, murthy gandikota wrote:
> Hi Mike
> Thanks for your input. I read the page before and it caused more
> confusion.
> May be an example would clarify this:
>
> create table `cust` (`ssn` varchar(10), `source` int(3) , `disposition`
> int(3));
> insert into cust (ssn, source, disposition) values ('123456789', 1, 2);
> insert into cust (ssn, source, disposition) values ('123456780', 2, 1);
> insert into cust (ssn, source, disposition) values ('123456781', NULL,
> NULL);
>
> create table `source` (`id` int(3), `source` varchar(10));
> insert into source(id, source) values (1, 'source1');
> insert into source(id,source) values (2, 'source2');
>
> create table `disposition` (`id` int(3), `disposition` varchar(10));
> insert into disposition (id, disposition) values (1, 'dispo1');
> insert into disposition(id,disposition) values (2, 'dispo2');
>
> Now I run the sql:
> select cust.ssn, disposition.disposition, source.source from cust LEFT
> JOIN source ON (cust.source=source.id) LEFT JOIN disposition ON
> (cust.disposition=disposition.id)
>
> +-----------+-------------+---------+
> | ssn | disposition | source |
> +-----------+-------------+---------+
> | 123456789 | dispo2 | source1 |
> | 123456789 | dispo2 | source1 |
> | 123456780 | dispo1 | source2 |
> | 123456780 | dispo1 | source2 |
> | 123456781 | NULL | NULL |
> +-----------+-------------+---------+
>
> I don't want this cos the ssn 123456780 is shown twice
>
> select cust.ssn, disposition.disposition, source.source from cust RIGHT
> JOIN source ON (cust.source=source.id) RIGHT JOIN disposition ON
> (cust.disposition=disposition.id)
>
> +-----------+-------------+---------+
> | ssn | disposition | source |
> +-----------+-------------+---------+
> | 123456789 | dispo2 | source1 |
> | 123456789 | dispo2 | source1 |
> | 123456780 | dispo1 | source2 |
> | 123456780 | dispo1 | source2 |
> +-----------+-------------+---------+
>
> This has the same problem.
>
> All I want is
>
> +-----------+-------------+---------+
> | ssn | disposition | source |
> +-----------+-------------+---------+
> | 123456789 | dispo2 | source1 |
> | 123456780 | dispo1 | source2 |
> | 123456781 | NULL | NULL |
> +-----------+-------------+---------+
>
> I'd appreciate your help.
> Thanks
> Murthy
> Michael Dykman <mdykman@gmail.com> wrote:
> a left join and a right join are 2 very distinct things... It is not
> clear from your text what it is you exactly are going for here but I
> doubt that applying either LEFT or RIGHT to ALL of your (many) joins
> is going to give it to you. You need to stop and examine the
> relationships between the tables in this query and determine which
> class of JOIN you will need (and there are more than just these 2).
>
> The description you gave of your results using RIGHT and LEFT
> universally are consistent with what I would expect from those types
> of joins. I suggest that you read this page very carefully before you
> continue:
>
> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/join.html
>
> - michael
>
> On 4/3/07, murthy gandikota wrote:
>> I tried the following 2 SQL's and the results are less than
>> satisfactory. The RIGHT join does not show where disposition is NULL.
>> The LEFT join shows dispositions as NULL where they shouldn't be. Also
>> the LEFT join generates more dupes. Any way to fix this?
>>
>> select cust.first as FIRST, cust.last as LAST, cust.address AS ADDRESS,
>> cust.city as CITY, cust.state as STATE, cust.zip as ZIP, cust.ssn as
>> SSN, disposition.disposition as DISPOSITION, leadSource.source as
>> SOURCE, cust.loanBalance AS LOANBALANCE, cust.currentPayment as
>> CURRENTPAYMENT, cust.newPayment as NEWPAYMENT from cust RIGHT JOIN
>> disposition on (cust.disposition=disposition.id) RIGHT JOIN leadSource
>> on (cust.source=leadSource.id) where agentCode=11 and newPayment > 0 and
>> cust.disposition > 0 order by SOURCE, DISPOSITION
>>
>> select cust.first as FIRST, cust.last as LAST, cust.address AS ADDRESS,
>> cust.city as CITY, cust.state as STATE, cust.zip as ZIP, cust.ssn as
>> SSN, disposition.disposition as DISPOSITION, leadSource.source as
>> SOURCE, cust.loanBalance AS LOANBALANCE, cust.currentPayment as
>> CURRENTPAYMENT, cust.newPayment as NEWPAYMENT from cust LEFT JOIN
>> disposition on (cust.disposition=disposition.id) LEFT JOIN leadSource on
>> (cust.source=leadSource.id) where agentCode=11 and newPayment > 0 and
>> cust.disposition > 0 order by SOURCE, DISPOSITION
>>
>> The MYSQL has the following version
>>
>> mysql Ver 14.7 Distrib 5.0.2-alpha, for pc-linux (i686)
>>
>> Thanks for your help
>> Murthy
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast
>> with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.
>
>
> --
> - michael dykman
> - mdykman@gmail.com
>
> - All models are wrong. Some models are useful.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
> with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>


--
Later

Mogens Melander
+45 40 85 71 38
+66 870 133 224



--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is
believed to be clean.

Many thanks for your input. Looks like the older version of mysql, preceding 5.0 has some problems. I've to upgrade mysql now. :-(

Thanks again.

Mogens Melander <mogens@fumlersoft.dk> wrote:
Well, trying your example gives me the expected result.

select cust.ssn, disposition.disposition, source.source
from cust LEFT JOIN source ON (cust.source=source.id)
LEFT JOIN disposition ON (cust.disposition=disposition.id);

'123456789', 'dispo2', 'source1'
'123456780', 'dispo1', 'source2'
'123456781', null, null

On Wed, April 4, 2007 00:03, murthy gandikota wrote:
> Hi Mike
> Thanks for your input. I read the page before and it caused more
> confusion.
> May be an example would clarify this:
>
> create table `cust` (`ssn` varchar(10), `source` int(3) , `disposition`
> int(3));
> insert into cust (ssn, source, disposition) values ('123456789', 1, 2);
> insert into cust (ssn, source, disposition) values ('123456780', 2, 1);
> insert into cust (ssn, source, disposition) values ('123456781', NULL,
> NULL);
>
> create table `source` (`id` int(3), `source` varchar(10));
> insert into source(id, source) values (1, 'source1');
> insert into source(id,source) values (2, 'source2');
>
> create table `disposition` (`id` int(3), `disposition` varchar(10));
> insert into disposition (id, disposition) values (1, 'dispo1');
> insert into disposition(id,disposition) values (2, 'dispo2');
>
> Now I run the sql:
> select cust.ssn, disposition.disposition, source.source from cust LEFT
> JOIN source ON (cust.source=source.id) LEFT JOIN disposition ON
> (cust.disposition=disposition.id)
>
> +-----------+-------------+---------+
> | ssn | disposition | source |
> +-----------+-------------+---------+
> | 123456789 | dispo2 | source1 |
> | 123456789 | dispo2 | source1 |
> | 123456780 | dispo1 | source2 |
> | 123456780 | dispo1 | source2 |
> | 123456781 | NULL | NULL |
> +-----------+-------------+---------+
>
> I don't want this cos the ssn 123456780 is shown twice
>
> select cust.ssn, disposition.disposition, source.source from cust RIGHT
> JOIN source ON (cust.source=source.id) RIGHT JOIN disposition ON
> (cust.disposition=disposition.id)
>
> +-----------+-------------+---------+
> | ssn | disposition | source |
> +-----------+-------------+---------+
> | 123456789 | dispo2 | source1 |
> | 123456789 | dispo2 | source1 |
> | 123456780 | dispo1 | source2 |
> | 123456780 | dispo1 | source2 |
> +-----------+-------------+---------+
>
> This has the same problem.
>
> All I want is
>
> +-----------+-------------+---------+
> | ssn | disposition | source |
> +-----------+-------------+---------+
> | 123456789 | dispo2 | source1 |
> | 123456780 | dispo1 | source2 |
> | 123456781 | NULL | NULL |
> +-----------+-------------+---------+
>
> I'd appreciate your help.
> Thanks
> Murthy
> Michael Dykman wrote:
> a left join and a right join are 2 very distinct things... It is not
> clear from your text what it is you exactly are going for here but I
> doubt that applying either LEFT or RIGHT to ALL of your (many) joins
> is going to give it to you. You need to stop and examine the
> relationships between the tables in this query and determine which
> class of JOIN you will need (and there are more than just these 2).
>
> The description you gave of your results using RIGHT and LEFT
> universally are consistent with what I would expect from those types
> of joins. I suggest that you read this page very carefully before you
> continue:
>
> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/join.html
>
> - michael
>
> On 4/3/07, murthy gandikota wrote:
>> I tried the following 2 SQL's and the results are less than
>> satisfactory. The RIGHT join does not show where disposition is NULL.
>> The LEFT join shows dispositions as NULL where they shouldn't be. Also
>> the LEFT join generates more dupes. Any way to fix this?
>>
>> select cust.first as FIRST, cust.last as LAST, cust.address AS ADDRESS,
>> cust.city as CITY, cust.state as STATE, cust.zip as ZIP, cust.ssn as
>> SSN, disposition.disposition as DISPOSITION, leadSource.source as
>> SOURCE, cust.loanBalance AS LOANBALANCE, cust.currentPayment as
>> CURRENTPAYMENT, cust.newPayment as NEWPAYMENT from cust RIGHT JOIN
>> disposition on (cust.disposition=disposition.id) RIGHT JOIN leadSource
>> on (cust.source=leadSource.id) where agentCode=11 and newPayment > 0 and
>> cust.disposition > 0 order by SOURCE, DISPOSITION
>>
>> select cust.first as FIRST, cust.last as LAST, cust.address AS ADDRESS,
>> cust.city as CITY, cust.state as STATE, cust.zip as ZIP, cust.ssn as
>> SSN, disposition.disposition as DISPOSITION, leadSource.source as
>> SOURCE, cust.loanBalance AS LOANBALANCE, cust.currentPayment as
>> CURRENTPAYMENT, cust.newPayment as NEWPAYMENT from cust LEFT JOIN
>> disposition on (cust.disposition=disposition.id) LEFT JOIN leadSource on
>> (cust.source=leadSource.id) where agentCode=11 and newPayment > 0 and
>> cust.disposition > 0 order by SOURCE, DISPOSITION
>>
>> The MYSQL has the following version
>>
>> mysql Ver 14.7 Distrib 5.0.2-alpha, for pc-linux (i686)
>>
>> Thanks for your help
>> Murthy
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast
>> with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.
>
>
> --
> - michael dykman
> - mdykman@gmail.com
>
> - All models are wrong. Some models are useful.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
> with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>


--
Later

Mogens Melander
+45 40 85 71 38
+66 870 133 224



--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is
believed to be clean.


--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=p...software.co.uk


--- Scanned by M+ Guardian Extreme Messaging Firewall by Messaging Architects ---




---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.