Hitoshi Harada wrote: > I tested on Oracle 10.2.0, and the results are: > > select depname, empno, salary, > lead(salary, 1) over (order by salary), > lag(salary, 1) over (order by salary), > first_value(salary) over (order by salary), > last_value(salary) over (order by salary) > from empsalary; > > DEPNAME EMPNO SALARY LEAD(SALARY,1)OVER(ORDERBYSALARY) > LAG(SALARY,1)OVER(ORDERBYSALARY) > FIRST_VALUE(SALARY)OVER(ORDERBYSALARY) > LAST_VALUE(SALARY)OVER(ORDERBYSALARY) > personnel 5 3500 3900 3500 3500 > personnel 2 3900 4200 3500 3500 3900 > develop 7 4200 4500 3900 3500 4200 > develop 9 4500 4800 4200 3500 4500 > sales 4 4800 4800 4500 3500 4800 > sales 3 4800 5000 4800 3500 4800 > sales 1 5000 5200 4800 3500 5000 > develop 10 5200 5200 5000 3500 5200 > develop 11 5200 6000 5200 3500 5200 > develop 8 6000 5200 3500 6000 > > which means the section 4.15 is true. Could anyone try DB2?
DB2 9.5 results: Using the empsalary table from the regression test in the patch: select depname, empno, salary, lead(salary, 1) over (order by salary), lag(salary, 1) over (order by salary), first_value(salary) over (order by salary), last_value(salary) over (order by salary) from empsalary; personnel 5 3500 3900 3500 3500 personnel 2 3900 4200 3500 3500 3900 develop 7 4200 4500 3900 3500 4200 develop 9 4500 4800 4200 3500 4500 sales 4 4800 4800 4500 3500 4800 sales 3 4800 5000 4800 3500 4800 sales 1 5000 5200 4800 3500 5000 develop 10 5200 5200 5000 3500 5200 develop 11 5200 6000 5200 3500 5200 develop 8 6000 5200 3500 6000 Which matches with your Oracle results. So either they both got it wrong by one copying the other... <sarcasm> Of course we all know it couldn't be Oracle copying IBM, that would never happen... </sarcasm> David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
