Jeff Davis wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 11:56 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I get your point about COUNT(*) really counting rows, not values, but
why doesn't GROUP BY then skip nulls?
A while ago, I came to the conclusion that applying logic to extrapolate
the behavior of NULL is a bad
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the explanation about standard sql.
The goodness of it must be accepted by faith. :-)
I still have a doubt about the result of the GROUP BY clause.
It seems to me that there's an inconsistence between the GROUP BY clause
and the unique index.
The GROUP BY clause, consider
jo jose.soa...@sferacarta.com wrote:
Thanks for the explanation about standard sql.
The goodness of it must be accepted by faith. :-)
Not if you have the stamina to fight your way through the standards
documents. ;-)
I still have a doubt about the result of the GROUP BY clause.
It seems
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 08:58:32AM +0200, jo wrote:
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the explanation about standard sql.
The goodness of it must be accepted by faith. :-)
I still have a doubt about the result of the GROUP BY clause.
It seems to me that there's an inconsistence between the GROUP BY
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
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
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
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
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 11:26:20AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I think the original complaint is that NULL != NULL in a WHERE
clause, but GROUP BY is able to group them together just fine.
Whoa! I think I know what you meant, but that is a dangerously
misleading misstatement. It is not
On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 11:56 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I get your point about COUNT(*) really counting rows, not values, but
why doesn't GROUP BY then skip nulls?
A while ago, I came to the conclusion that applying logic to extrapolate
the behavior of NULL is a bad idea:
The following bug has been logged on the website:
Bug reference: 6669
Logged by: jose soares
Email address: jose.soa...@sferacarta.com
PostgreSQL version: 8.4.8
Operating system: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, debian
Description:
Hi,
I think I have found an error in pg or at
jose.soa...@sferacarta.com writes:
I think I have found an error in pg or at least inconsistency, take a look
at this.
I created an unique index on two columns and pg let me enter repeated values
as NULLs (unknown value),
This is entirely correct per SQL standard: unique constraints do not
11 matches
Mail list logo
