Re: Review: listagg aggregate

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Scott Bailey <artacus(at)comcast(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review: listagg aggregate
Date: 2010-01-26 11:08:16
Message-ID: 055A5C3E-A18A-4054-B4D2-0EE3A09611C8@kineticode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Jan 25, 2010, at 23:14, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> why is concat_agg better than listagg ?

Because it's an aggregate that cocatenates values. It's not an
aggregate that lists things. I also like concat_agg better than
string_agg because it's not limited to acting on strings.

Best,

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alastair Turner 2010-01-26 11:23:58 Re: Review: listagg aggregate
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2010-01-26 10:56:04 Re: Dividing progress/debug information in pg_standby, and stat before copy