RE: New Window Function: ROW_NUMBER_DESC() OVER() ?

From: Maiquel Grassi <grassi(at)hotmail(dot)com(dot)br>
To: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: New Window Function: ROW_NUMBER_DESC() OVER() ?
Date: 2024-01-16 20:27:10
Message-ID: CP8P284MB2496E7028B8858D20A8F47ADEC732@CP8P284MB2496.BRAP284.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

--//--

We are just raising hypotheses and discussing healthy possibilities here. This is a suggestion for knowledge and community growth. Note that this is not about a new "feature patch." I am asking for the community's opinion in general. Your responses are largely appearing aggressive and depreciative. Kindly request you to be more welcoming in your answers and not oppressive. This way, the community progresses more rapidly.

Maiquel.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2024-01-16 20:36:06 Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs
Previous Message Jelte Fennema-Nio 2024-01-16 20:25:58 Re: UUID v7