On Mar 25, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Sam Mason wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 05:27:04PM -0500, Decibel! wrote:
On Mar 20, 2008, at 2:23 PM, Sam Mason wrote:
SELECT i, (MIN((j,k))).k
FROM tbl
GROUP BY i;
How is that any better than SELECT i, min(k) FROM tbl GROUP BY i ?
Because I want the
On Mar 20, 2008, at 2:23 PM, Sam Mason wrote:
I'm trying to write a version of the MIN aggregate for values of
RECORD
type. I'm somewhat stuck on getting type information about the
argument
out, I can determine how many attributes it's got but I can't seem
to do
any better than that. Does
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 05:27:04PM -0500, Decibel! wrote:
On Mar 20, 2008, at 2:23 PM, Sam Mason wrote:
SELECT i, (MIN((j,k))).k
FROM tbl
GROUP BY i;
How is that any better than SELECT i, min(k) FROM tbl GROUP BY i ?
Because I want the value of k associated with the minimum value of
Sam Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 05:27:04PM -0500, Decibel! wrote:
On Mar 20, 2008, at 2:23 PM, Sam Mason wrote:
SELECT i, (MIN((j,k))).k
FROM tbl
GROUP BY i;
How is that any better than SELECT i, min(k) FROM tbl GROUP BY i ?
Because I want the value of
On Mar 25, 2008, at 4:43PM, Gregory Stark wrote:
On Mar 20, 2008, at 2:23 PM, Sam Mason wrote:
SELECT i, (MIN((j,k))).k
FROM tbl
GROUP BY i;
I have nothing against having min(record) and it does seem like it would let
you do this at least for reasonably simple cases.
The main reason
Sam Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SELECT i, MIN(k) OVER (PARTITION BY j)
FROM tbl
GROUP BY i;
This is obviously wrong, but I don't see how to get to where I need to
be.
I'm not entirely sure myself. I think it might involve RANK OVER j though.
I suspect it will look more like the
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 06:58:06PM +, Gregory Stark wrote:
Sam Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SELECT i, MIN(k) OVER (PARTITION BY j)
FROM tbl
GROUP BY i;
This is obviously wrong, but I don't see how to get to where I need to
be.
I'm not entirely sure myself. I think it
Sam Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 06:58:06PM +, Gregory Stark wrote:
The main thing I wanted to avoid was an explosion of sub-queries that
you get with DISTINCT ON style queries. For example, with record style
syntax, I can do:
SELECT i, (MIN((j,k))).k AS
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 07:54:17PM +, Gregory Stark wrote:
Sam Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SELECT i, (MIN((j,k))).k AS ka, (MIN((mycode(j),k))).k AS kb
FROM tbl
GROUP BY i;
The flip side is that if you want to get several fields based on min(j) the
min(record) approach requires
Sam Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The reason for the sub-select is only because SQL doesn't provide any
other way to name expressions. Hum, or at least this should work...
There doesn't seem to be any nice way of getting fields out of a record!
If I really want to do this, it's going to
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 01:03:18AM +, Gregory Stark wrote:
Sam Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The reason for the sub-select is only because SQL doesn't provide any
other way to name expressions. Hum, or at least this should work...
There doesn't seem to be any nice way of getting
Hi,
I'm trying to write a version of the MIN aggregate for values of RECORD
type. I'm somewhat stuck on getting type information about the argument
out, I can determine how many attributes it's got but I can't seem to do
any better than that. Does anyone have any good pointers into the code
for
12 matches
Mail list logo
