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

Re: [HACKERS] No: implied sort with group by

From: "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Darren King <darrenk(at)insightdist(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] No: implied sort with group by
Date: 1998-01-27 16:44:55
Message-ID: 34CE0F07.4ADAF81@alumni.caltech.edu (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > > Does the SQL standard say anything about an implied sort when
> > > grouping or is it up to the user to include an ORDER BY clause?

Up to the user. SQL is a set-oriented language. The fact that many/most/all
implementations order results to then do grouping is an implementation
detail, not a language definition.


> This is what I think is missing or broken right now.
>
> > > select * from t1;
> >          a b  c
> >          1    x
> >          2    x
> >          3    z
> >          2    x
> >
> > 4 row(s) retrieved.
> > > select b,c,sum(a) from t1 group by b,c;
> > b  c             (sum)
> >
> >    x                 5
> >    z                 3
> >> 2 row(s) retrieved.

Sorry, I've lost the thread. What is broken? I get this same result, and
(assuming that column "b" is full of nulls) I think this the correct result.

                                                        - Tom


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-01-27 16:54:00
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] No: implied sort with group by
Previous:From: Andrew MartinDate: 1998-01-27 16:31:03
Subject: Re: Re: [PORTS] the 'money' type

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