> > > Does the SQL standard say anything about an implied sort when
> > > grouping or is it up to the user to include an ORDER BY clause?
Up to the user. SQL is a set-oriented language. The fact that many/most/all
implementations order results to then do grouping is an implementation
detail, not a language definition.
> This is what I think is missing or broken right now.
> > > select * from t1;
> > a b c
> > 1 x
> > 2 x
> > 3 z
> > 2 x
> > 4 row(s) retrieved.
> > > select b,c,sum(a) from t1 group by b,c;
> > b c (sum)
> > x 5
> > z 3
> >> 2 row(s) retrieved.
Sorry, I've lost the thread. What is broken? I get this same result, and
(assuming that column "b" is full of nulls) I think this the correct result.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1998-01-27 16:54:00|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] No: implied sort with group by|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Martin||Date: 1998-01-27 16:31:03|
|Subject: Re: Re: [PORTS] the 'money' type|