From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP |
Date: | 2005-03-10 04:00:26 |
Message-ID: | 422FC65A.5060806@familyhealth.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
>>Comments? Can anyone confirm whether DB2 or other databases allow
>>ungrouped column references with HAVING?
>
> Oracle does not allow such references. It issues "ORA-00979: not a
> GROUP BY expression" when you try to hand it such a reference.
>
> MS SQL Server does not allow such references either, yielding
> "columnname is invalid in the HAVING clause because it is not
> contained in either an aggregate function or the GROUP BY clause.".
>
> Can't comment about DB2.
MySQL allows it:
mysql> create table tab (col integer);
Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.01 sec)
mysql> select col from tab having 2 > 1;
Empty set (0.00 sec)
mysql> insert into tab values (1);
Query OK, 1 row affected (0.00 sec)
mysql> select col from tab having 2 > 1;
+------+
| col |
+------+
| 1 |
+------+
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
Of course, that's not saying much!
Chris
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-03-10 04:44:55 | Re: We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-03-10 03:46:26 | Re: We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP BY |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-03-10 04:23:07 | Information schema tweak? |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-03-10 03:53:08 | Re: fool-toleranced optimizer |