From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | "Edwin S(dot) Ramirez" <ramirez(at)idconcepts(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Postgres 7.3.5 and count('x') |
Date: | 2003-12-06 18:30:54 |
Message-ID: | 14295.1070735454@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> In general,
> SELECT count(expr) FROM table1;
> counts the number of rows in table1 where expr evaluates to not null.
Right. Edwin obscured the datatype issue by leaving off a table, but
the issue is real anyway:
regression=# select count(1) from tenk1;
count
-------
10000
(1 row)
regression=# select count('x') from tenk1;
ERROR: cannot accept a value of type any
We need to do something about that, I think. The "long form" solution
would be to cause 'x' to be promoted to type text in this context, but
I think it may be enough to remove the elog() in any_in() and just let
a dummy value be returned.
> If table1 is not specified, that rule no longer holds. At best you
> could assume that table1 is empty and return 0. But a result of 1 I
> cannot see justified.
Mumble. An Oracle person would say that our locution
"SELECT expression" is a shorthand for "SELECT expression FROM dual"
(or whatever the name of that standard one-row table of theirs is).
With that understanding, the behavior of "SELECT count(1)" is entirely
proper. If you assume that "SELECT expression" means to select from
a dummy table of no rows, then it should produce no result rows,
which would be pretty useless. So I don't see the argument for saying
that count() should produce zero in that case.
I could see an argument for putting in a special case to error out if
an aggregate appears in this context ... but the current behavior seems
perfectly okay to me. Except for the datatype problem.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-06 18:44:03 | Re: Double linked list with one pointer |
Previous Message | Richard Schilling | 2003-12-06 17:49:33 | Fwd: Double linked list with one pointer [mendola@bigfoot.com] |