> > how much harder can it be to accept: > > > > group by 'foo'
Presumably you meant group by "foo". Imho pg should accept group by "foo". It could be part of a constant removal, that also takes burden off the sort. e.g. in "select x, count(*) from bar where x=5 group by x", x could be removed since it is constant. > This is not about hardness of the implementation, but rather about > non-confusing behaviour I think. > > AFAIK, "group by 1" means "group by the first selected column", not > "group all rows together". But "group by 'foo'" would carry the second > meaning - "group all rows together". Yes. I don't see the issue. 1 is imho sufficiently different even from "1". Pg is not alone in allowing column number in group by. Andreas ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
