On Monday, January 8, 2024, Geoff Winkless wrote
>
>
> Mildly interesting: you can pass column positions to GROUP BY and
> ORDER BY but if you try to pass a position to GROUPING() (I wondered
> if that would help the engine somehow) it fails:
>
The symbol 1 is ambigious - it can be the number or
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 at 11:12, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> What's even more of a head-scratcher is why fixing this this then
> breaks the _first_ group's ORDERing.
Ignore that. Finger slippage - looking back I realised I forgot the
"=0" test after the GROUPING() call.
It looks like I'm going to go wit
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 at 10:23, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> Seems there was a reason why I thought that: per the documentation:
>
> "The arguments to the GROUPING function are not actually evaluated,
> but they must exactly match expressions given in the GROUP BY clause
> of the associated query level."
On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 at 23:27, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> Well yes. I assumed that since it's required that a group expression is in
> the query itself that
> the grouping values were taken from the result set, I have to admit to some
> surprise that
> they're calculated twice (three times?).
Seems
On Sat, 6 Jan 2024, 19:49 Tom Lane, wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" writes:
> > Something does seem off here with the interaction between grouping sets
> and
> > order by.
>
> Yeah. I think Geoff is correct to identify the use of subqueries in
> the grouping sets as the triggering factor.
[snip]
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> Something does seem off here with the interaction between grouping sets and
> order by.
Yeah. I think Geoff is correct to identify the use of subqueries in
the grouping sets as the triggering factor. We can get some insight
by explicitly printing the ordering value
On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 at 16:22, David G. Johnston
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 8:38 AM Geoff Winkless wrote:
>> because when gp_conc is 0, it should be ordering by the concat() value.
>
> Something does seem off here with the interaction between grouping sets and
> order by.
> I'm inclined to be
Hi,
Zhang Mingli
www.hashdata.xyz
On Jan 6, 2024 at 23:38 +0800, Geoff Winkless , wrote:
>
> I was hoping to see
>
> gp_n | gp_conc | n | concat
> --+-+--+
> 1 | 0 | NULL | n1x5
> 1 | 0 | NULL | n2x4
> 1 | 0 | NULL | n3x3
> 1 | 0 | NULL | n4x2
> 1 | 0 | NULL | n5x1
> 0 | 1
On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 8:38 AM Geoff Winkless wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 at 18:34, Zhang Mingli wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 6, 2024 at 01:38 +0800, Geoff Winkless ,
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Am I missing some reason why the first set isn't sorted as I'd hoped?
> >
> >
> > Woo, it’s a complex order by, I t
On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 at 18:34, Zhang Mingli wrote:
>
> On Jan 6, 2024 at 01:38 +0800, Geoff Winkless , wrote:
>
>
> Am I missing some reason why the first set isn't sorted as I'd hoped?
>
>
> Woo, it’s a complex order by, I try to understand your example.
> And I think the order is right, what’s you
Hi,
Zhang Mingli
www.hashdata.xyz
On Jan 6, 2024 at 01:38 +0800, Geoff Winkless , wrote:
>
> Am I missing some reason why the first set isn't sorted as I'd hoped?
Woo, it’s a complex order by, I try to understand your example.
And I think the order is right, what’s your expected order result?
`
11 matches
Mail list logo
