Re: [HACKERS] No: implied sort with group by
От | Thomas G. Lockhart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] No: implied sort with group by |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 34CE0F07.4ADAF81@alumni.caltech.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] No: implied sort with group by (darrenk@insightdist.com (Darren King)) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] No: implied sort with group by
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > > Does the SQL standard say anything about an implied sort when > > > grouping or is it up to the user to include an ORDER BY clause? Up to the user. SQL is a set-oriented language. The fact that many/most/all implementations order results to then do grouping is an implementation detail, not a language definition. > This is what I think is missing or broken right now. > > > > select * from t1; > > a b c > > 1 x > > 2 x > > 3 z > > 2 x > > > > 4 row(s) retrieved. > > > select b,c,sum(a) from t1 group by b,c; > > b c (sum) > > > > x 5 > > z 3 > >> 2 row(s) retrieved. Sorry, I've lost the thread. What is broken? I get this same result, and (assuming that column "b" is full of nulls) I think this the correct result. - Tom
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: