Re: [HACKERS] error on HAVING clause

Question is, if we can't get it fixed completely, does it work well
enough for us to keep it in 6.3.2?

>
> On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Don't worry about time Bruce. I'm not in a hurry.
> HAVING is an important feature. Finally SELECT statement is complete.
> I would like to show you another thing about HAVING.
>
> prova=> select sno,qty from sp group by sno,qty having qty = 300;
> sno |qty
> -----+---
> S1 |100
> S1 |200
> S1 |300
> S1 |400
> S2 |300
> S2 |400
> S3 |200
> S4 |200
> S4 |300
> S4 |400
> (10 rows)
>
> prova=> select oid,sno,qty from sp group by sno,qty having qty = 300;
> oid|sno |qty
> ------+-----+---
> 147004|S1 |100
> 147001|S1 |200
> 147000|S1 |300
> 147002|S1 |400
> 147006|S2 |300
> 147007|S2 |400
> 147008|S3 |200
> 147009|S4 |200
> 147010|S4 |300
> 147011|S4 |400
> (10 rows)
>
> Solid give me another result. Who are rigth ?
>
> SOLID SQL Editor (teletype) v.02.20.0007
> select sno,qty from sp group by sno,qty having qty = 300;
> SNO QTY
> --- ---
> S1 300.
> S2 300.
> S4 300.
> 3 rows fetched.
>
> Maybe this one is illegal, but it give me a strange output:
>
> prova=> select oid,sno,qty from sp having qty = 300;
> | | <---------where is the title ????
> ------+-----+---
> 147000|S1 |300
> 147001|S1 |200
> 147002|S1 |400
> 147003|S1 |200
> 147004|S1 |100
> 147005|S1 |100
> 147006|S2 |300
> 147007|S2 |400
> 147008|S3 |200
> 147009|S4 |200
> 147010|S4 |300
> 147011|S4 |400
> (12 rows)
> Jose'
>
>

--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)