Mike,
I see what you're saying `active` was the alias name not an actual
column. Ironically I was using a HAVING clause because I agree with
that last post.
Mike, why keep the `IF` statement? You're really saying give me all the
records where this expression is true. Why not just move the expression
in the `IF` to the HAVING clause?
So take my old statement and ditch the where clause. You'll get:
SELECT *
FROM wifi_table
HAVING unix_timestamp()-unix_timestamp(last_seen) < 600;
A little easier on the eyes no?
Cheers,
Adam
On Apr 6, 2004, at 9:42 PM, Michael Stassen wrote:
> Adam,
>
> That won't work. Daevid doesn't have a column named active. Nor does
> he have to do the math twice. As was pointed out earlier, he can do
> what he wants using HAVING instead of WHERE, like this:
>
> SELECT *,
> IF(((unix_timestamp()-unix_timestamp(last_seen)) < 600),1,0) active
> FROM wifi_table
> HAVING active = 1;
>
> Michael
>
> Adam wrote:
>
>> Daevid,
>> SELECT *
>> FROM wifi_table
>> WHERE active = 1
>> HAVING unix_timestamp()-unix_timestamp(last_seen) < 600;
>> Regards,
>> Adam
>> On Apr 5, 2004, at 8:29 PM, Daevid Vincent wrote:
>>> I'm curious when will I be able to do something like this:
>>>
>>> SELECT *, IF(( (unix_timestamp()-unix_timestamp(last_seen)) <
>>> 600),1,0) as
>>> active FROM wifi_table WHERE active = 1;
>>>
>>> It's so obnoxious, especially since I can do this:
>>>
>>> SELECT *, IF(( (unix_timestamp()-unix_timestamp(last_seen)) <
>>> 600),1,0) as
>>> active FROM wifi_table WHERE
>>> unix_timestamp()-unix_timestamp(last_seen) <
>>> 600;
>>>
>>> Why do I have to do the math TWICE?!
>>>
>>> *sigh*
>
>
