Re: Re: "Oracle's ROWNUM"
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: "Oracle's ROWNUM" |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20636.996502382@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: "Oracle's ROWNUM" (Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>) |
Ответы |
RE: Re: "Oracle's ROWNUM"
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes: > Oracle doc says. > If you embed the ORDER BY clause in a subquery and place the ROWNUM > condition in the top-level query, you can force the ROWNUM condition > to be applied after the ordering of the rows. For example, the > following query returns the 10 smallest employee numbers. This > is sometimes referred to as a "top-N query": > SELECT * FROM > (SELECT empno FROM emp ORDER BY empno) > WHERE ROWNUM < 11; This thing gets more poorly-defined every time I hear about it!? Based on what's been said so far, ROWNUM in a WHERE clause means something completely different from ROWNUM in the SELECT target list: it seems they mean input row count vs output row count, respectively. If I do SELECT rownum, * FROM foo WHERE rownum > 10 and rownum < 20; will the output rows be numbered 1 to 9, or 11 to 19? If I add a condition, say "AND field1 < 100", to the WHERE clause, does the rownum count include the rows rejected by the additional clause, or not? And how do you justify any of these behaviors in a coherent fashion? Dare I ask how it behaves in the presence of GROUP BY, HAVING, aggregates, DISTINCT, UNION, ... ? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: