; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] greatest/least semantics different between oracle
> > and postgres
> >
> > > Maybe that reference was for an earlier version of Oracle and the
> >
> > definition
> >
> > > changed at some
ECTED] On Behalf Of Pavel Stehule
> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 10:37 AM
> To: Bruno Wolff III; Pavel Stehule; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] greatest/least semantics different between oracle
> and postgres
>
> > Maybe that reference was for an earlier version
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-general-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pavel Stehule
> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 10:37 AM
> To: Bruno Wolff III; Pavel Stehule; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] greatest/least s
IL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pavel Stehule
> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 10:37 AM
> To: Bruno Wolff III; Pavel Stehule; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] greatest/least semantics different between oracle
> and postgres
>
> > Maybe that reference was
Maybe that reference was for an earlier version of Oracle and the definition
changed at some point? I only have access to version 9 and greatest and
lest are strict there.
I am installing OracleXE and I'll test it.
Pavel
---(end of broadcast)---
We pretty much ignore the spec's concept of non-error completion
conditions, but it sounds like Oracle tries to support it.
Anyway, there's no doubt that we can point to the behavior of MAX/MIN
as defense for what we made GREATEST/LEAST do, so I'm inclined to leave
their behavior alone, at least
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 09:29:23 +0200,
Pavel Stehule <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have not Oracle, so I cannot test it, but PostgreSQL implementation
> respect Oracle:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-06/msg00431.php
Maybe that reference was for an earlier ve
Tom Lane wrote:
Anyway, there's no doubt that we can point to the behavior of MAX/MIN
as defense for what we made GREATEST/LEAST do, so I'm inclined to
leave
their behavior alone, at least until such time as they're actually
standardized.
I don't think I buy this - MIN and MAX are aggregate
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Anyway, there's no doubt that we can point to the behavior of MAX/MIN
> >> as defense for what we made GREATEST/LEAST do, so I'm inclined to leave
> >> their behavior alone, at least until such time as they're actu
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Anyway, there's no doubt that we can point to the behavior of MAX/MIN
>> as defense for what we made GREATEST/LEAST do, so I'm inclined to leave
>> their behavior alone, at least until such time as they're actually
>> standardized. But
Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Fwiw even in the min/max/sum case the spec is moving away from having
> > aggregates ignore NULL values. You now get a warning in Oracle if your
> > aggregate includes any NULL inputs.
>
> I don't think there's any "moving" involved;
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Bruno Wolff III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Also what value should I have used in a coalesce to guaranty still getting
>>> the maximum?
>
>> I would expect coalesce(coalesce(greatest(a,b),a),b) to do what y
"Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Fwiw even in the min/max/sum case the spec is moving away from having
>> aggregates ignore NULL values. You now get a warning in Oracle if your
>> aggregate includes any NULL inputs.
>
> How does Oracle's new behavior relate to the standard moving?
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Fwiw even in the min/max/sum case the spec is moving away from having
> aggregates ignore NULL values. You now get a warning in Oracle if your
> aggregate includes any NULL inputs.
I don't think there's any "moving" involved; as far back as SQL92 the
def
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Bruno Wolff III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Also what value should I have used in a coalesce to guaranty still getting
>> the maximum?
> I would expect coalesce(coalesce(greatest(a,b),a),b) to do what you want. It's
> not terribly legible though and
Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > GREATEST/LEAST aren't in the spec, so there's not much help there.
> >
> > Except ... if they ever do get added to the spec, what do you think
> > the spec will say? The odds it'd contradict Oracle seem about nil.
>
> Fwiw even
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> GREATEST/LEAST aren't in the spec, so there's not much help there.
>
> Except ... if they ever do get added to the spec, what do you think
> the spec will say? The odds it'd contradict Oracle seem about nil.
Fwiw even in the min/max/sum case the spec is m
"Bruno Wolff III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also what value should I have used in a coalesce to guaranty still getting
> the maximum?
I would expect coalesce(coalesce(greatest(a,b),a),b) to do what you want. It's
not terribly legible though and if a and b are subselects I would worry a
little
Hello,
I have not Oracle, so I cannot test it, but PostgreSQL implementation
respect Oracle:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-06/msg00431.php
Regards
Pavel Stehule
2007/6/30, Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The following is just FYI.
I was recently doing some stuff with
>
> Er ... your example doesn't actually seem to involve greatest() or
> least()?
>
So sorry, it's been a long day, I misread. Yes, greatest/least definitely
does work on Oracle as the OP said. Apologies again.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP
"paul rivers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But I question the original poster's report of Oracle's behavior. I don't
> have 9.2.0.8 to test, but on 9.2.0.7:
Er ... your example doesn't actually seem to involve greatest() or
least()?
regards, tom lane
---
Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jun 29, 2007, at 9:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm ... I fear Oracle's behavior is more correct, because if any
>> argument is null (ie, unknown), then who can say what the greatest or
>> least value is? It's unknown (ie, null). But I suspect our behavior
>> is
--
9.2.0.7.0
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-general-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 10:18 PM
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: PostgreSQL General ((EN))
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] greatest/le
On Jun 29, 2007, at 9:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Hmm ... I fear Oracle's behavior is more correct, because if any
argument is null (ie, unknown), then who can say what the greatest or
least value is? It's unknown (ie, null). But I suspect our behavior
is more useful. Comments?
I agree with you.
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 00:15:42 -0400,
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Andrej Ricnik-Bay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On 6/30/07, Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I was recently doing some stuff with greatest() on oracle (9.2.0.8.0) and
> >> noticed that it returned nul
On 6/30/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hmm ... I fear Oracle's behavior is more correct, because if any
argument is null (ie, unknown), then who can say what the greatest or
least value is? It's unknown (ie, null). But I suspect our behavior
is more useful. Comments?
But in min/max
"Andrej Ricnik-Bay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6/30/07, Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I was recently doing some stuff with greatest() on oracle (9.2.0.8.0) and
>> noticed that it returned null if ANY of the arguments were null. Out of
>> curiosity I checked postgres' definitio
On 6/30/07, Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The following is just FYI.
I was recently doing some stuff with greatest() on oracle (9.2.0.8.0) and
noticed that it returned null if ANY of the arguments were null. Out of
curiosity I checked postgres' definition of that function and found t
The following is just FYI.
I was recently doing some stuff with greatest() on oracle (9.2.0.8.0) and
noticed that it returned null if ANY of the arguments were null. Out of
curiosity I checked postgres' definition of that function and found that it
returns null only if ALL of the arguments are null
29 matches
Mail list logo
