Re: ordered aggregates using WITHIN GROUP (was Re: can somebody execute this query on Oracle 11.2g and send result?)

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ordered aggregates using WITHIN GROUP (was Re: can somebody execute this query on Oracle 11.2g and send result?)
Date: 2010-01-29 16:07:19
Message-ID: 162867791001290807m3f35a17cnccc2fbd82221405f@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2010/1/29 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>:
> Jonah H. Harris escribió:
>
>> The syntax is listagg(expression [, delimiter]) WITHIN GROUP (order by
>> clause) [OVER partition clause]
>> If a delimiter is defined, it must be a constant.
>>
>> Query: SELECT listagg(a, ',') WITHIN GROUP (ORDER BY a) FROM foo;
>> Result: aaa,bbb,ccc
>
> So that's how Oracle supports ordered aggregates?  Interesting -- we
> just got that capability but using a different syntax.  Hmm, the
> SQL:200x draft also has <within group specification> which seems the
> standard way to do the ORDER BY stuff for aggregates ...  Should we
> change the syntax?

Oracle syntax is little bit longer, but it is safer. What is a standard?

Regards
Pavel Stehule

p.s. if it is only syntactic suger, then can't be a problem.

Pavel
>
> --
> Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-01-29 16:09:57 Re: 64-bit size pgbench
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2010-01-29 16:03:59 ordered aggregates using WITHIN GROUP (was Re: can somebody execute this query on Oracle 11.2g and send result?)