| From: | "D'Arcy" "J(dot)M(dot)" Cain <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu (Thomas G(dot) Lockhart) |
| Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, darcy(at)druid(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] SUM() and GROUP BY |
| Date: | 1999-01-14 10:38:23 |
| Message-ID: | m100kAR-0000bpC@druid.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thus spake Thomas G. Lockhart
> > 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.
Well, I still think that an aggregate on a whole column when no rows
are selected (None exist or WHERE clause deselects everything) should
return 0 rows, not NULL but the above would be better than what happens
now.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at){druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 424 2871 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Kapfhammer | 1999-01-14 15:02:27 | |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 1999-01-14 10:38:15 | Re: [HACKERS] CONSTRAINTS... |