On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 10:29:22AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> > COUNT(*) can't skip nulls because there is no specified column,
> > but why does COUNT(col) skip nulls --- again, inconsistent.
>
> I disagree -- one is counting rows, the other is counting rows with
> a value in that column. I guess one could criticize the syntax for
> specifying that as non-obvious, but it seems pretty reasonable to
> me.
I get your point about COUNT(*) really counting rows, not values, but
why doesn't GROUP BY then skip nulls?
WITH null_test (col1, col2) AS
(
SELECT 1, null
UNION ALL
SELECT null, null
)
SELECT COUNT(*), col2 FROM null_test group by col2
UNION ALL
SELECT COUNT(col1), col2 FROM null_test group by col2;
count | col2
-------+------
2 |
1 |
(2 rows)
Since col2 is null in both places, why it is processed? Looks like
GROUP BY is selecting the NULL rows, then COUNT is processing them based
on its rules.
I think the original complaint is that NULL != NULL in a WHERE clause,
but GROUP BY is able to group them together just fine.
Anyway, just thoughts on the topic.
--
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
