SELECT DISTINCT a, b, c, array_agg(k.d) OVER (PARTITION BY k.c ) FROM
testy k where k.e <> 'email' and k.c='1035049' ORDER BY a, b, c, e
If doesnt work - Probably there is a better option...
In worst case I would do
SELECT DISTINCT a, b, c, array_agg(d) OVER (PARTITION BY c ) FROM
(
SELECT a, b, c, d FROM testy where e <> 'email' and c='1035049' ORDER BY
a, b, c, e
)
Kind Regards,
Misa
2013/4/24 Rafał Pietrak <ra...@zorro.isa-geek.com>
> W dniu 03/24/2013 12:11 PM, Rafał Pietrak pisze:
>
> W dniu 03/24/2013 12:06 PM, Misa Simic pisze:
>
> maybe,
>
> SELECT DISTINCT issuer,amount, array_agg(REFERENCE) over (partition by
> invoice_nr) from invoices;
>
>
> RIGHT. Thenx. (and the first thing I did, I've read the doc on
> array_agg().... what stress makes from people :(
>
>
> Actually, I have a problem with that (which I haven't noticed earlier
> because the data I'm having, don't have to many "duplicates" that cause
> it). The problem is, that:
> --------------------------------------
> SELECT DISTINCT a, b, c, array_agg(k.d) OVER (PARTITION BY k.c ) FROM
> testy k where k.e <> 'email' and k.c='1035049' ;
> a | b | c | array_agg
> ------+----------+---------+-------------------------------
> 1035 | 10410053 | 1035049 | {9902031328529,5951948640868}
> ---------------------------------------
>
> is _almost_ fine. But I actually need to have control over the order in
> which the array gathered its values. So I try:
> ------------------------------------
> SELECT DISTINCT a, b, c, array_agg(k.d) OVER (PARTITION BY k.c ORDER BY
> k.e) FROM testy k where k.e <> 'email' and k.c='1035049' ;
> a | b | c | array_agg
> ------+----------+---------+-------------------------------
> 1035 | 10410053 | 1035049 | {5951948640868}
> 1035 | 10410053 | 1035049 | {5951948640868,9902031328529}
> (2 rows)
> --------------------------------------
>
> And this is not at all what I've expected - the aggerate function returned
> different values over the selected partition.
>
> I understand, that this behavior (of changing the aggregate function
> return values) is there for the purpose of having sum() - and the like -
> aggregate functions return accumulating/averaged/etc values as of the
> example in postgres documentation (
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/tutorial-window.html)
>
> But the array_agg() is significantly different from other aggregate
> functions - it maintains all the trasspassed values within; under such
> circumstances: is it reasonable to copy that functionality (of PARTITION
> OVER ... ORDER BY...) in it?
> A particular value relevant to a particular row (when SELECT withiout
> DISTINCT) can be retrieved by RANK() function used as an index into the
> resulting array.
>
> But, if (unfortunately) this functionality have to stay: Can somebody pls
> help me cooking an SQL that returns the same value of array_agg() over the
> entire partition, while letting me control the order of aggregated values,
> based on the order of column "E"?
>
> My table for the showcase was:
> -----------------------------------
> SELECT * FROM testy;
> a | b | c | d | e
> ------+----------+---------+----------------------+-------
> 1035 | 10410053 | 1035049 | 9902031328529 | tel
> 1035 | 10410053 | 1035049 | 5291286...@gmail.com | email
> 1035 | 10410053 | 1035049 | 5951948640868 | tel2
> (3 rows)
> ------------------------------------------
>
> thx
>
> -R
>
