| From: | Rafał Pietrak <rafal(at)zorro(dot)isa-geek(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: is there a way to deliver an array over column from a query window? | 
| Date: | 2013-04-26 16:41:50 | 
| Message-ID: | 517AAE4E.1020504@zorro.isa-geek.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general | 
W dniu 04/26/2013 05:25 PM, Tom Lane pisze:
> =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Rafa=B3_Pietrak?= <rafal(at)ztk-rp(dot)eu> writes:
>> array_agg(distinct v order by v) -- works in postgres, but actually I need:
>> array_agg(distinct v order by v,x) -- which doesn't. (ERROR:
>> ....expressions must appear in argument list),
> Why do you think you need that?  AFAICS, the extra order-by column could
> not in any way affect the result of the operation.
In my particular case (e.g. not in general, since I assume, we all 
agree, that people do sort things comming out of the query for one 
purpose or another), is that:
1. the information i retrieve (the V), is a telephone number.
2. my database does keep numerous contact information (e.g. telephone 
numbers, email, etc) for "entities" registered here - e.g 
people/companies leave contact information of various relevance: 
my-private, my-office, my-lawyer, etc.
3. when I need to get in touch with somebody, I need to choose the 
number that is "most relevant" - one person leaves "my-private" phone, 
and "my-lawyer"  phone; the other leaves "my-office", and "my-lawyer".
4. in the above example I'd like to peek: "my-private" for the first 
person, and "my-office" for the other. I wouldn't like to relay on 
randomness provided by the database query plan.
5. so I have "the other" column (the X, e.g "my-something"), that I'd 
like to sort the array elements by. And peek just the first element of 
the array.
BTW: I've just rid off the array, and cooked a plain table join with 
"distinct on ()", which gives just what I needed. My initial plan of 
using array was to reduce the intermediate row-sets as much as possible 
as early as possible. Yet, in this case, plain old RDB joins proved to 
be better (may be not faster - a big multitable join is formed along the 
query, but conceptually cleaner, which works for me, the database isn't 
terribly big).
So I have my problem solved, although I haven't figured out a way to 
have controll over the sort order of array_agg() result - which might be 
otherwise usefull.
thnx,
-R
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-04-26 16:50:55 | Re: NOTIFY channel | 
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2013-04-26 16:38:24 | Re: NOTIFY channel |