Re: Using non-grouping-keys at HAVING clause
От | Vik Fearing |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Using non-grouping-keys at HAVING clause |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 181d12be-302e-c05b-7320-3e700ae9a554@postgresfriends.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Using non-grouping-keys at HAVING clause (Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@heterodb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Using non-grouping-keys at HAVING clause
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/8/23 09:42, Kohei KaiGai wrote: > Hello, > > I got a trouble report here: > https://github.com/heterodb/pg-strom/issues/636 > > It says that PG-Strom raised an error when the HAVING clause used > non-grouping-keys, > even though the vanilla PostgreSQL successfully processed the query. > > SELECT MAX(c0) FROM t0 GROUP BY t0.c1 HAVING t0.c0<MIN(t0.c0); > > However, I'm not certain what is the right behavior here. > The "c0" column does not appear in the GROUP BY clause, thus we cannot > know its individual > values after the group-by stage, right? Wrong. c1 is the primary key and so c0 is functionally dependent on it. Grouping by the PK is equivalent to grouping by all of the columns in the table. -- Vik Fearing
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: