| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Guyren Howe <guyren(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name>, PG-General Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: nth_value out of more than n values returns null |
| Date: | 2024-11-04 23:53:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYPU+j46pHakraap1d4jYzPVMx00o95NMe0WLuamkJp+g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Monday, November 4, 2024, Guyren Howe <guyren(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Wouldn’t it be offset 4_999_999?
>
Probably. I tend to expect off-by-one for these kinds of things and test
my way out.
>
> I’d still like to understand why nth_value doesn’t work.
>
When you perform an order by in a window clause the frame you get by
default ends at the current row. Consider “count(*) over ()” versus
“count(*) over (order by id)”.
You need to not use defaults for the window frame if this doesn’t suit you.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-11-05 00:49:52 | Re: nth_value out of more than n values returns null |
| Previous Message | Guyren Howe | 2024-11-04 23:46:08 | Re: nth_value out of more than n values returns null |