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

Re: Frames vs partitions: is SQL2008 completely insane?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Frames vs partitions: is SQL2008 completely insane?
Date: 2008-12-26 21:41:01
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> Lastly, for a simple aggregate used with an OVER clause, the current
> patch seems to define the aggregate as being taken over the frame
> rather than the partition, but I cannot find anything in SQL2008 that
> lends any support to *either* definition.

Never mind that --- I found it in 10.9 syntax rule 4.b.

But what this seems to boil down to is that LEAD() and LAST_VALUE()
are completely useless unless you're allowed to specify a nondefault
framing clause ... and don't mind ignoring the clearly-insane
restriction of 6.10 syntax rule 6.b.

The minimum extra functionality needed to make these functions useful
would seem to be to allow UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-12-26 23:28:28
Subject: Tuplestore trimming in window-functions patch
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-12-26 21:30:20
Subject: Re: Window-functions patch handling of aggregates

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group