From: | Chris Bitmead <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-sql(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] DISTINCT ON: speak now or forever hold your peace |
Date: | 2000-01-25 02:41:25 |
Message-ID: | 388D0D55.84F13203@bitmead.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> If I don't hear loud hollers very soon, I'm going to eliminate the
> DISTINCT ON "feature" for 7.0. As previously discussed, this feature
> is not standard SQL and has no clear semantic interpretation.
I don't feel overly strongly about this, but if I remember right you can
do some pretty cool things with this feature, provided you do define
some semantics clearly. Like I think you can find the first tuple
(given some ORDER BY clause) that fulfills some criteria. I think it is
SELECT DISTINCT ON name name, age ORDER BY age;
will get the youngest person. This might not be clearly specified now,
but
as long as it's useful, how about clearly defining it? I don't know that
there is an easy way of doing this in standard SQL. I don't see any
problems with useful extensions to SQL. If people want standards, they
don't have to use it.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Don Baccus | 2000-01-25 02:41:37 | Re: [HACKERS] Happy column dropping |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-01-25 02:39:39 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: pg_dump possible fix, need testers. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mike Mascari | 2000-01-25 02:50:45 | Re: [HACKERS] DISTINCT ON: speak now or forever hold your peace |
Previous Message | Tom Donaldson | 2000-01-25 01:54:51 | JDK1.2 Driver to Postgresql 6.5.3 - connection problem |