New Window Function: ROW_NUMBER_DESC() OVER() ?

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Maiquel Grassi <grassi(at)hotmail(dot)com(dot)br>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: New Window Function: ROW_NUMBER_DESC() OVER() ?
Date: 2024-01-16 19:55:23
Message-ID: CAKFQuwamiTRZK7KToG4cC9DdaFw2gVGZ+tGLyLPCU7VjgE++PA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tuesday, January 16, 2024, Maiquel Grassi <grassi(at)hotmail(dot)com(dot)br> wrote:
>
>
> However, initially, I have one more obstacle in your feedback. If I use
> count(*) over() - row_number() over(), it gives me an offset of one unit.
> To resolve this, I need to add 1.
>
> This way, simulating a reverse row_number() becomes even more laborious.
>

I don’t really understand why you think this reverse inserted counting is
even a good idea so I don’t really care how laborious it is to implement
with existing off-the-shelf tools. A window function named “descending” is
non-standard and seemingly non-sensical and should not be added. You can
specify order by in the over clause and that is what you should be doing.
Mortgage payments are usually monthly, so order by date.

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Konstantin Knizhnik 2024-01-16 20:10:23 Re: index prefetching
Previous Message Michał Kłeczek 2024-01-16 19:50:57 Re: New Window Function: ROW_NUMBER_DESC() OVER() ?