| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Randal L(dot) Schwartz" <merlyn(at)stonehenge(dot)com>, PDX PostgreSQL Users <pdxpug(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Meeting recap - Logic and Databases with Jeff Davis |
| Date: | 2008-06-24 05:30:38 |
| Message-ID: | A469503A-AE19-4936-9DB4-C0945A0865F6@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pdxpug |
On Jun 22, 2008, at 17:16, Jeff Davis wrote:
> I provided a link to the slides for my talk, and in there is a
> complete
> example, in which we start out with no NULLs at all in our data, and
> yet
> still run into precisely this problem. In that particular example, a
> WHERE will *not* solve the problem, because aggregates (other than
> COUNT) return NULL when there are no input rows (which I'd like to
> point
> out is not an "unknown").
>
> http://www.pgcon.org/2008/schedule/events/83.en.html
Right, and your solution there (the workaround for the inconsistency
in the standard) is to use COALESCE() inside your aggregate.
I certainly agree that this is ugly and confusing. I've run into it
myself!
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | gabrielle | 2008-07-07 15:11:32 | booth signup for OSCON |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2008-06-24 05:29:06 | Re: Meeting recap - Logic and Databases with Jeff Davis |