| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Rafal Pietrak <rafal(at)zorro(dot)isa-geek(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: a row disapearing | 
| Date: | 2006-05-27 18:06:41 | 
| Message-ID: | 200605271806.k4RI6fg05177@candle.pha.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general | 
Rafal Pietrak wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> This is ambarasing, but I've just noticed the following (which looks
> inconsistant to inexperienced eye). Having a table:
> 
> 	test=> CREATE TABLE xxx (id int, info text);
> 
> With some rows in it, I try:
> 
> 	test=> SELECT count(1) from xxx where id=1;
> 	 count 
> 	-------
> 	     0
> 	(1 row)
> 
> This is correct (meaning, I expected that). But when I try to fetch the
> actual selector used in the query as well, I get no rows instead.
> 
> 	test=> SELECT count(1),id from xxx where id=1 group by id;
> 	 count | id 
> 	-------+----
> 	(0 rows)
> 
> Is this a feature, or a bug? And in fact, is there a construct to get
> both the count() and its selectors *in*case*, when the count is ZERO?
> 
> All the above in postgres 8.1.
It is supposed to work that way.  In the first query, we have to return
a row to show you the count, while in the second query, there is no 'id'
value to show you, so we return nothing (nothing to GROUP BY).
-- 
  Bruce Momjian   http://candle.pha.pa.us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rafal Pietrak | 2006-05-27 18:19:48 | Re: a row disapearing | 
| Previous Message | Rafal Pietrak | 2006-05-27 18:01:56 | a row disapearing |