From: | Rumpi Gravenstein <rgravens(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Analytic Function Bug |
Date: | 2024-08-30 11:37:15 |
Message-ID: | CAEpg1wAyaMmYYgCLm1Ohft50SCiuhgMRRr0u880wAkyFxpbs6w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
<snip>
that the lag() functions are seeing some rows that don't show up in
the final output.
</snip>
I'm under the impression that the predicate filter is applied before the
analytic is evaluated. Are you suggesting that I have this wrong -- the
analytic is evaluated and then the filter is applied?
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 8:07 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Rumpi Gravenstein <rgravens(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Is this a PostgreSQL bug?
>
> Maybe, but you haven't provided enough information to let anyone else
> reproduce the behavior.
>
> Personally I'm suspicious that because your lag() calls are over
>
> partition by p.logical_partition_key, p.txt order by indx
>
> but then you filter by
>
> where logical_partition_key='TEST_DATA' and
> usage_text='F(T61)(EXPORT)';
>
> that the lag() functions are seeing some rows that don't show up in
> the final output. (This'd require that some output rows from "parse"
> share txt values but not usage_text values, but that certainly looks
> like it's possible.) So IMO you have not actually demonstrated that
> there is any bug.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
Rumpi Gravenstein
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rumpi Gravenstein | 2024-08-30 11:45:29 | Re: Analytic Function Bug |
Previous Message | Muhammad Usman Khan | 2024-08-30 11:23:30 | Re: default privileges are npt working |