From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Herouth Maoz <herouth(at)oumail(dot)openu(dot)ac(dot)il> |
Cc: | "Len Morgan" <len-morgan(at)crcom(dot)net>, pgsql-sql(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [SQL] Agregate Problem? |
Date: | 1999-08-15 15:48:41 |
Message-ID: | 10079.934732121@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
> At 17:01 +0300 on 15/08/1999, Len Morgan wrote:
>> SELECT itemno,sum(qty) FROM sales WHERE sale_date = 'now()::date'
This is invalid as it stands --- you need "GROUP BY itemno" because of
the aggregate function. (IIRC, Postgres versions before 6.5 were a bit
lax about checking for that error.)
>> I would expect to get back zero rows if there were no sales today but I get
>> back 1. Of course I also get back 1 row if I only sold 1 item. Is this a
>> bug or a "feature?"
Herouth Maoz <herouth(at)oumail(dot)openu(dot)ac(dot)il> writes:
> This is a correct behaviour when there is no GROUP BY. PostgreSQL does this
> in GROUP BY, too, unfortunately.
I believe we finally agreed that producing an empty row when there is a
GROUP BY is a bug (there was some debate about it). I intend to change
that behavior for 6.6, but haven't actually done it yet...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew Hagerty | 1999-08-16 02:58:36 | Stepping through a table. |
Previous Message | Ross J. Reedstrom | 1999-08-15 15:36:26 | Re: [SQL] Multiple values for a field |