Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When we considered outervar1 as a constant, we could do the aggregate in
> the subquery using computations, but when SUM(outervar1) is computed in
> an above query, combining that with anything that is part of different
> query level makes no sense to me
I wrote:
> Now I finally understand why the spec has all that strange verbiage
> about outer references in set-function arguments. This is the case
> they're talking about. (I don't much like their restriction to a single
> outer reference ... seems like it would be appropriate to allow multiple
>
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is SUM(up1levelvar + up2levelsvar) considered to be? Would that be
> the same as SUM(localvar + outervar) one level up?
Exactly. The spec says that SUM(up1levelvar) is the same as
SUM(localvar) one level up, so this seems a natural generalization.
It
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would
> SELECT PNUM, SUM(HOURS) FROM WORKS
>GROUP BY PNUM
>HAVING EXISTS (SELECT PNAME FROM PROJ
> WHERE PROJ.PNUM = WORKS.PNUM AND
> AVG(WORKS.HOURS) > PROJ.MAGIC / 200);
