On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 03:12:51PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > 2009/5/13 Joshua Tolley <eggyk...@gmail.com>: > > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 06:29:41AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> 2009/5/13 Joshua Tolley <eggyk...@gmail.com>: > >> > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:20:14PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> >> this patch has some bugs but it is good prototype (it's more stable > >> >> than old patch): > >> > > >> > I'm not sure if you're at the point that you're interested in bug > >> > reports, but > >> > here's something that didn't behave as expected: > >> > > >> > 5432 j...@josh*# create table gsettest (prod_id integer, cust_id integer, > >> > quantity integer); > >> > CREATE TABLE > >> > 5432 j...@josh*# insert into gsettest select floor(random() * 10)::int, > >> > floor(random() * 20)::int, floor(random() * 10)::int from > >> > generate_series(1, > >> > 100); > >> > INSERT 0 100 > >> > 5432 j...@josh*# select prod_id, cust_id, sum(quantity) from gsettest > >> > group by > >> > cube (prod_id, cust_id) order by 1, 2; > >> > prod_id | cust_id | sum > >> > ---------+---------+----- > >> > 5 | 7 | 4 > >> > 8 | 16 | 3 > >> > 9 | 19 | 8 > >> > 4 | 13 | 3 > >> > 8 | 8 | 15 > >> > 5 | 2 | 4 > >> > 7 | 6 | 7 > >> > 6 | 6 | 3 > >> > </snip> > >> > > >> > Note that the results aren't sorted. The following, though, works around > >> > it: > >> > >> I thing, so result should not be sorted - it's same like normal group by. > > > > Normal GROUP BY wouldn't have ignored the ORDER BY clause I included. > > sorry, now I understand - simply it is a bug. I fixed it
Where's the new patch? Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
