| From: | Kevin HaleBoyes <khaleboyes(at)chartwelltechnology(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP |
| Date: | 2005-03-10 18:21:14 |
| Message-ID: | 4230901A.3080101@chartwelltechnology.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Would those of you with access to other DBMSes try this:
>
> create table tab (col integer);
> select 1 from tab having 1=0;
> select 1 from tab having 1=1;
> insert into tab values(1);
> insert into tab values(2);
> select 1 from tab having 1=0;
> select 1 from tab having 1=1;
>
> I claim that a SQL-conformant database will return 0, 1, 0, and 1 rows
> from the 4 selects --- that is, the contents of tab make no difference
> at all. (MySQL returns 0, 0, 0, and 2 rows, so they are definitely
> copying our mistake...)
>
> regards, tom lane
From SQL server 2000 with a service pack, I get:
zero rows from the first query (having 1=0);
one row, col value 1, from second query (having 1=1);
...run inserts...
zero rows from the third query (having 1=0);
one row, col value 1, from forth query (having 1=1);
K.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Barry Lind | 2005-03-10 18:34:08 | Re: [HACKERS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP BY |
| Previous Message | Gill, Jerry T. | 2005-03-10 18:13:31 | Re: [HACKERS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP BY |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Barry Lind | 2005-03-10 18:34:08 | Re: [HACKERS] We are not following the spec for HAVING without GROUP BY |
| Previous Message | Bort, Paul | 2005-03-10 18:15:47 | Re: Raw size |