On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Daniel Grace <dgrace(at)wingsnw(dot)com> writes:
>> But if we SELECT
>> SOME_INTEGER_AGGREGATE(DISTINCT floatcol ORDER BY floatcol), should
>> the DISTINCT operate on floatcol (i.e. 1.1 and 1.2 are distinct, even
>> if it means the function is called with '1' twice) or
>> floatcol::integer (1.1 and 1.2 are not distinct)?
> Yes. The current implementation has the advantage that any
> unique-ifying step is guaranteed to produce outputs that are distinct
> from the point of view of the aggregate function, whereas if we try to
> keep the two operations at arms-length, then either we lose that
> property or we sort-and-unique twice :-(.
Am I misreading this, or did you just answer an "either-or" question with "yes"?
The Enterprise Postgres Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-07-27 23:41:29|
|Subject: Re: Review: Re: [PATCH] Re: [HACKERS] Adding xpath_exists function|
|Previous:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2010-07-27 23:33:25|
|Subject: Review: Re: [PATCH] Re: [HACKERS] Adding xpath_exists function|