Re: [HACKERS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP BY

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP BY
Date: 2005-03-10 17:44:50
Message-ID: 16153.1110476690@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> This is quite clear that the output of a HAVING clause is a "grouped
> table" no matter whether the query uses GROUP BY or aggregates or not.

> What that means is that neither the HAVING clause nor the targetlist
> can use any ungrouped columns except within aggregate calls; that is,
> select col from tab having 2>1
> is in fact illegal per SQL spec, because col isn't a grouping column
> (there are no grouping columns in this query).

Actually, it's even more than that: a query with HAVING and no GROUP BY
should always return 1 row (if the HAVING succeeds) or 0 rows (if not).
If there are no aggregates, the entire from/where clause can be thrown
away, because it can have no impact on the result!

Would those of you with access to other DBMSes try this:

create table tab (col integer);
select 1 from tab having 1=0;
select 1 from tab having 1=1;
insert into tab values(1);
insert into tab values(2);
select 1 from tab having 1=0;
select 1 from tab having 1=1;

I claim that a SQL-conformant database will return 0, 1, 0, and 1 rows
from the 4 selects --- that is, the contents of tab make no difference
at all. (MySQL returns 0, 0, 0, and 2 rows, so they are definitely
copying our mistake...)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gill, Jerry T. 2005-03-10 18:13:31 Re: [HACKERS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP BY
Previous Message yingqun wang 2005-03-10 15:42:32 BUG #1534: 2^32-1 commands limitation in one transcation

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ioannis Theoharis 2005-03-10 18:07:13 Raw size
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-03-10 17:14:57 Re: Too frequent warnings for wraparound failure