On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:40:08 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> writes:
>> That's not what I meant. I tried to say that if we have a GROUP BY
>> several columns and one of these columns alone has more than N/10
>> distinct values, there's no way to get less than that many groups.
>Oh, I see, you want a "max" calculation in there too. Seems reasonable.
Yes. :-( What I said is only true in the absence of any WHERE clause
(or join). Otherwise the same cross-column correlation issues you tried
to work around with the N/10 clamping might come back through the
backdoor. I'm not sure whether coding for such a narrow use case is
worth the trouble. Forget my idea.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-02-01 15:37:30|
|Subject: Re: Our getopt_long() doesn't do abbreviations or NLS |
|Previous:||From: Marc G. Fournier||Date: 2005-02-01 15:28:08|
|Subject: Re: 7.2.7 -> 8.0.1 Bundles Ready ...|