Re: [HACKERS] No: implied sort with group by

From: "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Darren King <darrenk(at)insightdist(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] No: implied sort with group by
Date: 1998-01-27 16:44:55
Message-ID: 34CE0F07.4ADAF81@alumni.caltech.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > > 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.

- Tom

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1998-01-27 16:54:00 Re: [HACKERS] No: implied sort with group by
Previous Message Andrew Martin 1998-01-27 16:31:03 Re: Re: [PORTS] the 'money' type