From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | David Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: BUG #10256: COUNT(*) behaves sort of like RANK() when used over a window containing an ORDER BY |
Date: | 2014-05-08 02:08:41 |
Message-ID: | 16221.1399514921@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
David Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> [ looks at SQL standard... ] The standard uses "peer" in this way too,
>> so that's where we got the term from. Because of that, I'm unwilling
>> to adopt your suggestion of thinking that "peer" means "member of the
>> same partition".
> I guess rows falling into the same partition could be deemed "member" rows;
> as in having membership in the partition.
Works for me.
> Does the standard provide a word for tuples that get placed into the same
> partition?
Not that I noticed, but I didn't search hard.
The index of SQL:2011 has one entry for "peer", pointing to this
definition under 10.10 <sort specification list>:
i) Two rows that are not distinct with respect to the <sort
specification>s are said to be peers of each other. The relative
ordering of peers is implementation-dependent.
so in their usage it's not even specific to windows. The terminology
for windows seems to be mostly defined in 4.15.14, and I don't see
a term in there for the rows belonging to a partition.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2014-05-08 02:34:17 | Re: can insert timestamp value that can't be read |
Previous Message | David Johnston | 2014-05-08 00:29:26 | Re: Re: BUG #10256: COUNT(*) behaves sort of like RANK() when used over a window containing an ORDER BY |