From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ordered aggregates using WITHIN GROUP (was Re: can somebody execute this query on Oracle 11.2g and send result?) |
Date: | 2010-01-29 16:07:19 |
Message-ID: | 162867791001290807m3f35a17cnccc2fbd82221405f@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/1/29 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>:
> Jonah H. Harris escribió:
>
>> The syntax is listagg(expression [, delimiter]) WITHIN GROUP (order by
>> clause) [OVER partition clause]
>> If a delimiter is defined, it must be a constant.
>>
>> Query: SELECT listagg(a, ',') WITHIN GROUP (ORDER BY a) FROM foo;
>> Result: aaa,bbb,ccc
>
> So that's how Oracle supports ordered aggregates? Interesting -- we
> just got that capability but using a different syntax. Hmm, the
> SQL:200x draft also has <within group specification> which seems the
> standard way to do the ORDER BY stuff for aggregates ... Should we
> change the syntax?
Oracle syntax is little bit longer, but it is safer. What is a standard?
Regards
Pavel Stehule
p.s. if it is only syntactic suger, then can't be a problem.
Pavel
>
> --
> Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-29 16:09:57 | Re: 64-bit size pgbench |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-01-29 16:03:59 | ordered aggregates using WITHIN GROUP (was Re: can somebody execute this query on Oracle 11.2g and send result?) |