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.
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() ? |