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

Re: Review: listagg aggregate

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Scott Bailey <artacus(at)comcast(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review: listagg aggregate
Date: 2010-01-26 14:56:07
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
2010/1/26 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 2:14 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> 2010/1/25 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:27 PM, David E. Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 25, 2010, at 2:09 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>>>> xmlagg -> concatenates values to form xml datum
>>>>> array_agg -> concatenates values to form array datum
>>>>> ??? -> concatenates values to form string datum
>>>> concat_agg().
>>> I like that one...
>> why is concat_agg better than listagg ?
> Because it doesn't make lists.
> Honestly, I don't love concat_agg() either - why should something need
> to have agg in the name just because it's an aggregate?  I think the
> most descriptive name would be something like
> concatenate_with_separator(), but that's kind of long.

This is never ending story :)

MySQL has function concate_ws - but this function has different semantic.

I thing so string_agg is short, and from one view consistent


> ...Robert

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Marko TiikkajaDate: 2010-01-26 15:06:44
Subject: Re: Review of Writeable CTE Patch
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-01-26 14:54:37
Subject: Re: Review of Writeable CTE Patch

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