From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Upgrades for 6.4.1 |
Date: | 1998-12-19 17:42:49 |
Message-ID: | 5478.914089369@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
>> * SELECT DISTINCT i FROM dtest ORDER BY j generates strange output
> In my simple test case, it orders by j, then only shows i. Is that
> strange?
The thing that is "strange" is that you get nonunique values of i,
which is definitely a bit unexpected for "SELECT DISTINCT":
play=> SELECT * FROM dtest;
i| j
-+--
1|10
1|11
1|12
2|20
3|30
(5 rows)
play=> SELECT DISTINCT i FROM dtest ORDER BY j;
i
-
1
1
1
2
3
(5 rows)
The reason that this is happening is that the "distinct" filter is
actually being run on i,j not just i (see "distinct + order by" thread
in the hackers archives around 8-Nov-98).
I don't know whether the SQL standard defines how this combination of
features ought to work ... but our current behavior seems fairly
surprising...
>> * Allow constraint NULL just as we honor NOT NULL
> Fundamental yacc problem with this as I recall. Gives rise to
> shift/reduce problems since it is ambiguous with other uses of "NULL" in
> the same area.
More to the point, what possible use would a column constrained to NULL
be? Might as well just not have it in the table...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Terry Mackintosh | 1998-12-19 18:30:10 | Is this a bug? or am I doing some thing wrong? |
Previous Message | Trever Adams | 1998-12-19 11:51:12 | BUGS list |