Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP
Date: 2005-03-14 16:51:18
Message-ID: 87vf7utbll.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers


Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> writes:

> They are aggregate functions, the avg() is a window aggregate function
> according to the standard. It runs over all values in the same partition.
>
> > -- albeit functions that use data from other records other
> > than the one being output.
>
> Yes, and not just one other record, but a number of them. Isn't that what
> aggregate functions are?

Er, yeah. They're aggregate functions in that they consider many records as
input. However they're not aggregate functions in that they produce an output
for every record, as opposed to outputting only one value for a whole group.

--
greg

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-03-14 18:39:59 Re: BUG #1542: pg_dump seg fault
Previous Message Dennis Bjorklund 2005-03-14 15:59:28 Re: [BUGS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-03-14 16:57:15 Re: signed short fd
Previous Message pgsql 2005-03-14 16:40:14 Re: signed short fd