From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
---|---|
To: | Oisin Glynn <me(at)oisinglynn(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jon Lapham <lapham(at)jandr(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Group By and wildcards... |
Date: | 2005-02-19 19:20:33 |
Message-ID: | 20050219192033.GA24244@wolff.to |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 14:02:34 -0500,
Oisin Glynn <me(at)oisinglynn(dot)com> wrote:
>
> But the where clause defines the result of the aggregate function (in this
> case the SUM)?
Not really.
> Is the only reason for needing the GROUP BY CLAUSE is because the aggregate
> function demands it?
Note that there is also a join to a table d. So that values in d are
being summed up based on some connection from d to the other 3 tables.
> If so could something like the following work where we pass the where clause
> conditions into the function and it performs the aggregate function and
> returns.. I am guessing this would be extremely inefficient?
>
> select A.*,B.*,C.*,my_cheating_sum(a.id,b.id,c.id) from a,b,c,
> where some conditions;
If that function did a select from d, you could make this work, but it
would likely be much slower than doing it in one SQL statement.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron Peterson | 2005-02-19 22:30:25 | quoting internal variable names |
Previous Message | S.D. | 2005-02-19 19:14:24 | Re: PGSQL 8.0.1 Win 2K Installation Problem |