Re: TODO items for window functions

From: "Hitoshi Harada" <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TODO items for window functions
Date: 2008-12-29 17:54:15
Message-ID: e08cc0400812290954ud2650e0sd45f9e566e9fbcfb@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2008/12/30 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> "Hitoshi Harada" <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> And surveying sgml docs, I found this is not correct.
>
>> http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/select.sgml?r1=1.112&r2=1.113
>
>> + default framing behavior, which is equivalent to the framing clause
>> + <literal>ROWS BETWEEN UNBOUNDED PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW</>.
>
>> the default frame with ORDER BY clause is RANGE BETWEEN UNBOUNDED
>> PRECEDING AND CURRENT ROW, as aggregates perform rows peer to the
>> current row.
>
> What is the difference? AFAICS the RANGE and ROWS keywords ought to be
> equivalent if you are not specifying "expression PRECEDING" or
> "expression FOLLOWING".

The difference is that RANGE ... CURRENT ROW contains all peers of the
current row, while ROWS ... CURRENT ROW doesn't contain them but the
current row itself only. See 7.11 rule 5-b.

Regards,

--
Hitoshi Harada

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-12-29 18:00:15 Re: TODO items for window functions
Previous Message Michael Meskes 2008-12-29 17:42:43 Re: ecpg regression test failures caused by window functions patch