On Wed, 22 May 2024 at 10:15, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a good candidate for a window function. Also note that nulls > already get sorted correctly by the DESC so no need to get 'infinity' > involved, although you could write 'DESC NULLS FIRST' to be explicit about > it. > > with x as (select *, row_number() over (partition by id order by > upper(dates) desc, lower(dates) desc) from example) > select id,value,dates from x where row_number = 1; > Don’t you need NULLS LAST for the lower bounds? There NULL means something closer to -infinity and should appear after the non-NULL values in a descending sort. Actually it strikes me that this sorting issue could be a reason to avoid NULL bounds on ranges and prefer the use of +/-infinity if the underlying data type supports it.
