Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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 (view raw or flat)
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

pgsql-hackers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group