| From: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] SUM() and GROUP BY |
| Date: | 1999-01-14 06:11:02 |
| Message-ID: | 369D8A76.99B4A178@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I suppose you could argue that this is consistent with cases 2 and 3,
> in a weird way, but it's certainly not the way I'd expect it to work.
> If there are no groups created by GROUP BY, then AVG should never be
> invoked at all, therefore there should be no rows returned.
Agreed.
> So, again I agree with D'Arcy.
I'm missing something. Is there another issue for GROUP BY for which we
don't have a consensus? An aggregate on an entire column can return
NULL, and aggregates on columns with GROUP BY columns of NULL should
not.
> But I'm not the one who might have
> to try to fix this...
And why not? :)
- Tom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1999-01-14 06:59:08 | Re: [HACKERS] postgres and year 2000 |
| Previous Message | Roland Roberts | 1999-01-14 01:52:36 | Postgres 6.3.2 varchar <--> int4 conversions |