Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 9:37 AM David Christensen wrote: > I'm not married to the exact syntax of this feature; anything else short > and consistent could work if `ALL` is considered to potentially > gain a different interpretation in the future. > GROUP BY * Just kidding. But a big +1 to the w

Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 6:53 PM David Christensen wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 4:34 PM David G. Johnston > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM David Christensen wrote: > >> > >> I see that there'd been some chatter but not a lot of discussion about > >> a GROUP BY ALL feature/fu

Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

> On 24 Jul 2024, at 13:58, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 at 15:22, Andrei Borodin wrote: >> I'd like to have GROUP BY AUTO (I also proposed version GROUP BY SURPRISE >> ME). But I wouldn't like to open pandora box of syntax sugar extensions >> which may will be incompati

Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

Hi st 24. 7. 2024 v 10:57 odesílatel Jelte Fennema-Nio napsal: > On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 at 22:55, David Christensen wrote: > > I see that there'd been some chatter but not a lot of discussion about > > a GROUP BY ALL feature/functionality. There certainly is utility in > > such a construct IMHO.

Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 at 15:22, Andrei Borodin wrote: > I'd like to have GROUP BY AUTO (I also proposed version GROUP BY SURPRISE > ME). But I wouldn't like to open pandora box of syntax sugar extensions which > may will be incompatible with future standards. > If we could have extensible grammar

Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 at 22:55, David Christensen wrote: > I see that there'd been some chatter but not a lot of discussion about > a GROUP BY ALL feature/functionality. There certainly is utility in > such a construct IMHO. +1 from me. When exploring data, this is extremely useful because you don

Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

On 23.07.24 00:29, Tom Lane wrote: (Personally, I'd wonder exactly what ALL is quantified over: the whole output of the FROM clause, or only columns mentioned in the SELECT tlist, or what? And why that choice rather than another?) Looks like the main existing implementations take it to mean all

Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

On 7/22/24 15:43, Tom Lane wrote: Isaac Morland writes: And for when this might be useful, the syntax for it already exists, although a spurious error message is generated: odyssey=> select (uw_term).*, count(*) from uw_term group by uw_term; ERROR: column "uw_term.term_id" must appear in t

Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 9:48 AM David Christensen wrote: > > Sure, not everything that makes things easier is strictly necessary; > we could require `CAST(field AS text)` instead of `::text`, Probably should have...being standard and all. Though syntactic sugar is quite different from new beha

Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 10:57 AM Laurenz Albe wrote: > > On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 08:37 -0500, David Christensen wrote: > > My intention here was to basically be a shorthand for "group by > > specified non-aggregate fields in the select list". Perhaps I'm not > > being creative enough, but what is t

Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 08:37 -0500, David Christensen wrote: > My intention here was to basically be a shorthand for "group by > specified non-aggregate fields in the select list".  Perhaps I'm not > being creative enough, but what is the interpretation/use case for > anything else? :-) I am somewh

Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 4:41 PM Isaac Morland wrote: > And for when this might be useful, the syntax for it already exists, although > a spurious error message is generated: > > odyssey=> select (uw_term).*, count(*) from uw_term group by uw_term; > ERROR: column "uw_term.term_id" must appear i

Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 8:21 AM Andrei Borodin wrote: > > On 23 Jul 2024, at 00:40, Isaac Morland wrote: > > odyssey=> select (uw_term).*, count(*) from uw_term group by uw_term; > ERROR: column "uw_term.term_id" must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be > used in an aggregate function > LINE 1:

Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 5:29 PM Tom Lane wrote: > > "David G. Johnston" writes: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM David Christensen wrote: > >> I see that there'd been some chatter but not a lot of discussion about > >> a GROUP BY ALL feature/functionality. There certainly is utility in > >>

Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 4:34 PM David G. Johnston wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM David Christensen wrote: >> >> I see that there'd been some chatter but not a lot of discussion about >> a GROUP BY ALL feature/functionality. There certainly is utility in >> such a construct IMHO. >> >

Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

On 23 Jul 2024, at 00:40, Isaac Morland wrote:odyssey=> select (uw_term).*, count(*) from uw_term group by uw_term;ERROR:  column "uw_term.term_id" must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be used in an aggregate functionLINE 1: select (uw_term).*, count(*) from uw_term group

Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

Isaac Morland writes: > And for when this might be useful, the syntax for it already exists, > although a spurious error message is generated: > odyssey=> select (uw_term).*, count(*) from uw_term group by uw_term; > ERROR: column "uw_term.term_id" must appear in the GROUP BY clause or be > used

Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

"David G. Johnston" writes: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM David Christensen wrote: >> I see that there'd been some chatter but not a lot of discussion about >> a GROUP BY ALL feature/functionality. There certainly is utility in >> such a construct IMHO. > I strongly dislike adding this feat

Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 at 17:34, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM David Christensen > wrote: > >> I see that there'd been some chatter but not a lot of discussion about >> a GROUP BY ALL feature/functionality. There certainly is utility in >> such a construct IMHO. >> >>

Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM David Christensen wrote: > I see that there'd been some chatter but not a lot of discussion about > a GROUP BY ALL feature/functionality. There certainly is utility in > such a construct IMHO. > > Still need some docs; just throwing this out there and getting some

[PATCH] GROUP BY ALL

I see that there'd been some chatter but not a lot of discussion about a GROUP BY ALL feature/functionality. There certainly is utility in such a construct IMHO. The grammar is unambiguous, so can support this construct in lieu of the traditional GROUP BY clause. Enclosed is a patch which adds t