On Mar 25, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Sam Mason wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 05:27:04PM -0500, Decibel! wrote:
On Mar 20, 2008, at 2:23 PM, Sam Mason wrote:
SELECT i, (MIN((j,k))).k
FROM tbl
GROUP BY i;
How is that any better than SELECT i, min(k) FROM tbl GROUP BY i ?
Because I want the value
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 01:03:18AM +, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Sam Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The reason for the sub-select is only because SQL doesn't provide any
> > other way to name expressions. Hum, or at least this should work...
> > There doesn't seem to be any nice way of ge
"Sam Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The reason for the sub-select is only because SQL doesn't provide any
> other way to name expressions. Hum, or at least this should work...
> There doesn't seem to be any nice way of getting fields out of a record!
>
> If I really want to do this, it's go
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 07:54:17PM +, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Sam Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > SELECT i, (MIN((j,k))).k AS ka, (MIN((mycode(j),k))).k AS kb
> > FROM tbl
> > GROUP BY i;
>
> The flip side is that if you want to get several fields based on min(j) the
> min(record) appro
"Sam Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 06:58:06PM +, Gregory Stark wrote:
> The main thing I wanted to avoid was an explosion of sub-queries that
> you get with DISTINCT ON style queries. For example, with record style
> syntax, I can do:
>
> SELECT i, (MIN((j,k))
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 06:58:06PM +, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Sam Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > SELECT i, MIN(k) OVER (PARTITION BY j)
> > FROM tbl
> > GROUP BY i;
> >
> > This is obviously wrong, but I don't see how to get to where I need to
> > be.
>
> I'm not entirely sure my
"Sam Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> SELECT i, MIN(k) OVER (PARTITION BY j)
> FROM tbl
> GROUP BY i;
>
> This is obviously wrong, but I don't see how to get to where I need to
> be.
I'm not entirely sure myself. I think it might involve RANK OVER j though.
I suspect it will look more
On Mar 25, 2008, at 4:43PM, Gregory Stark wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2008, at 2:23 PM, Sam Mason wrote:
> > SELECT i, (MIN((j,k))).k
> > FROM tbl
> > GROUP BY i;
>
> I have nothing against having min(record) and it does seem like it would let
> you do this at least for reasonably simple cases.
The ma
"Sam Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 05:27:04PM -0500, Decibel! wrote:
>> On Mar 20, 2008, at 2:23 PM, Sam Mason wrote:
>> > SELECT i, (MIN((j,k))).k
>> > FROM tbl
>> > GROUP BY i;
>>
>> How is that any better than SELECT i, min(k) FROM tbl GROUP BY i ?
>
> Because
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 05:27:04PM -0500, Decibel! wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2008, at 2:23 PM, Sam Mason wrote:
> > SELECT i, (MIN((j,k))).k
> > FROM tbl
> > GROUP BY i;
>
> How is that any better than SELECT i, min(k) FROM tbl GROUP BY i ?
Because I want the value of k associated with the minimum v
On Mar 20, 2008, at 2:23 PM, Sam Mason wrote:
I'm trying to write a version of the MIN aggregate for values of
RECORD
type. I'm somewhat stuck on getting type information about the
argument
out, I can determine how many attributes it's got but I can't seem
to do
any better than that. Does
11 matches
Mail list logo
