Well, my 2 cents is that though we consider NULL when ordering via ORDER BY, we ignore it in MAX because it really isn't a value, and NaN seems to be similar to NULL.
When doing ORDER BY, we have to put the NULL value somewhere, so we put it at the end, but with aggregates, we aren't required to put the NULL somewhere, so we ignore it. Should that be the same for NaN? I just don't see how we can arbitrarly say it is greater/less than other values. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Is this a TODO? > > It'll only take ten minutes to make it a DONE, once we figure out what > the behavior ought to be. So far I think both Stephan and I argued that > MIN/MAX ought to treat NaN as larger than all ordinary values, for > consistency with the comparison operators. That was not the behavior > Michael wanted, but I don't see that we have much choice given the > wording of the SQL spec. Does anyone want to argue against that > definition? > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
