From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: variance aggregates per SQL:2003 |
Date: | 2006-03-08 00:58:47 |
Message-ID: | 20060308005847.GB12612@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 07:56:06PM -0500, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 16:36 -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> > The rationale is kinda mathematical. A measure of deviation from
> > central tendency (i.e. variance or stddev) is something where you
> > probably don't want to normalize the weights.
> >
> > For example, the standard deviation of {0,1,1,1,2} is about 0.707,
> > but the standard deviation of {0,1,2} is 1.
>
> Well, I realize that stddev(DISTINCT x) != stddev(x) and that most
> people are going to be interested in stddev(x), but I don't think
> it's inconceivable for someone to be interested in stddev(DISTINCT
> x).
Not inconceivable. Just really hard to justify unless you're trying
to fudge a number ;)
> Explicitly checking for and rejecting it doesn't serve any useful
> purpose that I can see, beyond compliance with the letter of the
> standard -- if the user asks for stddev(DISTINCT x), are we really
> providing useful behavior if we refuse to calculate it?
Nope. I was just coming up for a rationale for why the standard
disallows it :)
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter david(at)fetter(dot)org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2006-03-08 00:59:58 | Re: CREATE SYNONYM ... |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2006-03-08 00:56:06 | Re: variance aggregates per SQL:2003 |