On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 08:58:32AM +0200, jo wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for the explanation about standard sql.
> The goodness of it must be accepted by faith. :-)
> I still have a doubt about the result of the GROUP BY clause.
> It seems to me that there's an inconsistence between the GROUP BY
> clause and the unique index.
> The GROUP BY clause, consider NULLs as known and equal values
> while the index unique constraint consider NULLs as unknown values
> and not equals between them.
> Don't you think, there's an inconsistence here?
Yes, I can see your point. I think GROUP BY is doing the best it can
with the NULL; having it consider them as different would lead to long
output. Also consider that COUNT(*) counts nulls, while COUNT(col) does
not:
WITH null_test (col) AS
(
SELECT 8
UNION ALL
SELECT NULL
)
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM null_test
UNION ALL
SELECT COUNT(col) FROM null_test;
count
-------
2
1
(2 rows)
COUNT(*) can't skip nulls because there is no specified column, but why
does COUNT(col) skip nulls --- again, inconsistent.
I think NULL is helpful for unknown values, and required as the output
of missing INSERT columns and unjoined outer join columns. I think the
aggregates then did the best they could.
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
