| From: | Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj> |
|---|---|
| To: | Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: weird GROUPING SETS and ORDER BY behaviour |
| Date: | 2024-01-08 11:53:47 |
| Message-ID: | CAEzk6fcirmrAUBXE7cZNxdjuB3Ay8gEW=U9qeRntN0xBQq73rg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 at 11:12, Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj> wrote:
> What's even more of a head-scratcher is why fixing this this then
> breaks the _first_ group's ORDERing.
Ignore that. Finger slippage - looking back I realised I forgot the
"=0" test after the GROUPING() call.
It looks like I'm going to go with
ORDER BY GROUPING(test1.n), test1.n, GROUPING(CONCAT(....)), CONCAT(...)
because it's easier to build the query sequentially that way than
putting all the GROUPING tests into a single ORDER, and it does seem
to work OK.
Geoff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2024-01-08 12:45:06 | Re: Escape output of pg_amcheck test |
| Previous Message | John Naylor | 2024-01-08 11:35:22 | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |