RE: GROUPING SETS and SQL standard

A <grouping specification> of () (called grand total in the Standard) is equivalent to grouping the entire result Table;

If I get it correctly:

select max(dummy) from dual where 0 = 1 group by grouping sets(());

and

select max(dummy) from dual where 0 = 1 ;

should have the same output.

It's the case with PostgreSQL, not with Oracle.
Hence it means it's PostgreSQL which conforms to the standard in this case.

Regards,
Phil

________________________________
De : Phil Florent <philflorent(at)hotmail(dot)com>
Envoyé : lundi 25 novembre 2019 22:18
À : Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc : pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Objet : RE: GROUPING SETS and SQL standard

Hi,
Thank you, as you mentionned it's not really an interesting real life case anyway.
Regards,
Phil

________________________________
De : Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Envoyé : lundi 25 novembre 2019 21:23
À : Phil Florent <philflorent(at)hotmail(dot)com>
Cc : pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Objet : Re: GROUPING SETS and SQL standard

po 25. 11. 2019 v 20:32 odesílatel Phil Florent <philflorent(at)hotmail(dot)com<mailto:philflorent(at)hotmail(dot)com>> napsal:
Hi,

We are still on the process to migrate our applications from proprietary RDBMS to PostgreSQL.

Here is a simple query executed on various systems (real query is different but this one does not need any data) :

Connected to:

Oracle Database 19c Standard Edition 2 Release 19.0.0.0.0 - Production

Version 19.3.0.0.0

SQL> select count(*) from (select 1 from dual where 0=1 group by grouping sets(())) tmp;

COUNT(*)

----------

0

select @@version;

GO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------

Microsoft SQL Server 2017 (RTM-CU16) (KB4508218) - 14.0.3223.3 (X64)

Jul 12 2019 17:43:08

Copyright (C) 2017 Microsoft Corporation

Developer Edition (64-bit) on Linux (Ubuntu 16.04.6 LTS)

select count(*) from (select 1 as c1 where 0=1 group by grouping sets(())) tmp;

GO

-----------

0

(1 rows affected)

select version();

version

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PostgreSQL 11.5 (Debian 11.5-1+deb10u1) on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (Debian 8.3.0-6) 8.3.0, 64-bit

select count(*) from (select 1 from dual where 0=1 group by grouping sets(())) tmp;

count

-------

1

(1 ligne)

0 or 1, which behaviour conforms to the SQL standard ? We have a workaround and it's just informational.

This example has not too much sense - I am not sure if these corner cases are described by ANSI SQL standards.

If I add aggregate query to subquery - using grouping sets without aggregation function is strange, then Postgres result looks more correct

postgres=# select 1, count(*) from dual group by grouping sets(());
┌──────────┬───────┐
│ ?column? │ count │
╞══════════╪═══════╡
│ 1 │ 1 │
└──────────┴───────┘
(1 row)

postgres=# select 1, count(*) from dual where false group by grouping sets(());
┌──────────┬───────┐
│ ?column? │ count │
╞══════════╪═══════╡
│ 1 │ 0 │
└──────────┴───────┘
(1 row)

SELECT count(*) from this should be one in both cases.

I am not sure, if standard describe using grouping sets without any aggregation function

Pavel

Regards,

Phil