On Sep 1, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> regression=# create or replace function array_agg_transfn_strict(internal,
>> anyelement) returns internal as 'array_agg_transfn' language internal
>> immutable;
>> CREATE FUNCTION
>> regression=# create aggregate array_agg_strict(anyelement)
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> On Sep 1, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>
ould appreciate the recipe for removing the NULLs.
>>>
>>> WHERE clause :P
>>
>> There may be cases where that's undesirable, such as there being more
>> than one aggregate in the SELECT list, or the column being
2010/9/1 Tom Lane :
> Pavel Stehule writes:
>> 2010/9/1 Tom Lane :
>>> Well, you can build your own version of array_agg with the same
>>> implementation, except you mark the transition function as strict ...
>
>> I am checking this now, and it is not possible - it needs a some
>> initial value an
Pavel Stehule writes:
> 2010/9/1 Tom Lane :
>> Well, you can build your own version of array_agg with the same
>> implementation, except you mark the transition function as strict ...
> I am checking this now, and it is not possible - it needs a some
> initial value and there isn't possible to se
2010/9/1 Tom Lane :
> "David E. Wheeler" writes:
>> On Sep 1, 2010, at 11:09 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> Then you can eliminate NULLs with simple function
>
>> Kind of defeats the purpose of the efficiency of the aggregate.
>
> Well, you can build your own version of array_agg with the same
> imp
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> On Sep 1, 2010, at 11:09 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> Then you can eliminate NULLs with simple function
> Kind of defeats the purpose of the efficiency of the aggregate.
Well, you can build your own version of array_agg with the same
implementation, except you mark th
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> On Sep 1, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Most aggregate functions ignore null inputs, so that rows in which
>> one or more of the expression(s) yield null are discarded. (This
>> can be assumed to be true, unless otherwise specified, for all
>> built-in aggrega
On Sep 1, 2010, at 11:09 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Then you can eliminate NULLs with simple function
>
> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION remove_null(anyarray)
> RETURNS anyarray AS $$
> SELECT ARRAY(SELECT x FROM unnest($1) g(x) WHERE x IS NOT NULL)
> $$ LANGUAGE sql;
Kind of defeats the purpose of
2010/9/1 Thom Brown :
> On 1 September 2010 18:47, David Fetter wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 08:16:41AM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
>>> On Sep 1, 2010, at 12:30 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>>
>>> > Docs is wrong :) I like current implementation. You can remove a
>>> > NULLs from aggregation ve
On Sep 1, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm, actually the whole para needs work. It was designed at a time when
> DISTINCT automatically discarded nulls, which isn't true anymore, and
> that fact was patched-in in a very awkward way too. Perhaps something
> like
>
>The first form of a
On Sep 1, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>>> ould appreciate the recipe for removing the NULLs.
>>
>> WHERE clause :P
>
> There may be cases where that's undesirable, such as there being more
> than one aggregate in the SELECT list, or the column being grouped on
> needing to return rows r
On 1 September 2010 18:47, David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 08:16:41AM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
>> On Sep 1, 2010, at 12:30 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>
>> > Docs is wrong :) I like current implementation. You can remove a
>> > NULLs from aggregation very simply, but different dire
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 08:16:41AM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2010, at 12:30 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> > Docs is wrong :) I like current implementation. You can remove a
> > NULLs from aggregation very simply, but different direction isn't
> > possible
>
> Would appreciate the re
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> On Sep 1, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Even more to the point, should we deliberately make this vaguer so that
>> we aren't finding ourselves with obsolete text again and again? You can
>> bet that people adding new aggregates in the future aren't going to
>>
On Sep 1, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think when that text was written, it was meant to imply "all the
> aggregates defined in SQL92". There seems to be a lot of confusion
> in this thread about whether "standard" means "defined by SQL spec"
> or "built-in in Postgres". Should we try
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> *** 1543,1549
> The first form of aggregate expression invokes the aggregate
> across all input rows for which the given expression(s) yield
> non-null values. (Actually, it is up to the aggregate function
> ! whether to ignore null values o
On Sep 1, 2010, at 12:30 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> So are the docs right, or is array_agg() right?
>
> Docs is wrong :) I like current implementation. You can remove a NULLs
> from aggregation very simply, but different direction isn't possible
Patch:
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/syntax.sgml b/d
On Sep 1, 2010, at 1:06 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
>> I think it might be both. array_agg doesn't return NULL, it returns
>> an array which contains NULL.
>
> The second I wrote that, I realised it was b*ll%$ks, as I was still in
> the process of waking up.
I know that feeling.
/me sips his coffee
On Sep 1, 2010, at 12:30 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Docs is wrong :) I like current implementation. You can remove a NULLs
> from aggregation very simply, but different direction isn't possible
Would appreciate the recipe for removing the NULLs.
Best,
David
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing
On 1 September 2010 07:56, Thom Brown wrote:
> On 1 September 2010 06:45, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>> The aggregate docs say:
>>
>>> The first form of aggregate expression invokes the aggregate across all
>>> input rows for which the given expression(s) yield non-null values.
>>> (Actually, it i
2010/9/1 David E. Wheeler :
> The aggregate docs say:
>
>> The first form of aggregate expression invokes the aggregate across all
>> input rows for which the given expression(s) yield non-null values.
>> (Actually, it is up to the aggregate function whether to ignore null values
>> or not — but
On Aug 31, 2010, at 11:56 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
>>> The first form of aggregate expression invokes the aggregate across all
>>> input rows for which the given expression(s) yield non-null values.
>>> (Actually, it is up to the aggregate function whether to ignore null values
>>> or not — but al
On 1 September 2010 06:45, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> The aggregate docs say:
>
>> The first form of aggregate expression invokes the aggregate across all
>> input rows for which the given expression(s) yield non-null values.
>> (Actually, it is up to the aggregate function whether to ignore null
The aggregate docs say:
> The first form of aggregate expression invokes the aggregate across all input
> rows for which the given expression(s) yield non-null values. (Actually, it
> is up to the aggregate function whether to ignore null values or not — but
> all the standard ones do.)
--
ht
24 matches
Mail list logo
