sorry, my bad, thanks for the clarification!
вт, 21 січ. 2025 р., 18:40 користувач David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> пише:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 10:39 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> PG Doc comments form writes:
>> > EXPECTED:
>> > As shown here, the rank function produces a numerical
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> I was going to write basically that but something feels off to me. Maybe
> something like this:
> "As shown here, the rank function produces a numerical ranking within each
> partition, using the order defined by the ORDER BY clause. Ranking assigns
> the same rank
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 10:39 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> PG Doc comments form writes:
> > EXPECTED:
> > As shown here, the rank function produces a numerical rank for each
> distinct
> > PARTITION BY value in the current row's partition, using the order
> defined
> > by the ORDER BY clause. rank needs
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 10:39 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> PG Doc comments form writes:
> > EXPECTED:
> > As shown here, the rank function produces a numerical rank for each
> distinct
> > PARTITION BY value in the current row's partition, using the order
> defined
> > by the ORDER BY clause. rank needs
PG Doc comments form writes:
> EXPECTED:
> As shown here, the rank function produces a numerical rank for each distinct
> PARTITION BY value in the current row's partition, using the order defined
> by the ORDER BY clause. rank needs no explicit parameter, because its
> behavior is entirely determ
