From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ISTM the problem here is the lack of any ordering operator for POINT,
> which defeats GROUP BY, *plus* the lack of any aggregate you might use
> for an aggregate-based solution. This is not really a language failing
> but a problem with an impoverished data
"Julian Scarfe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> SELECT location.ident, node, count(*) from location, message
> WHERE location.ident = message.ident
> GROUP BY location.ident;
> ERROR: Attribute location.node must be GROUPed or used in an aggregate
> function
> it obviously fails. If node were an
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 12:49:18 +0100,
Julian Scarfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm struggling to find an appropriate efficient query for an aggregate-type
> problem and I'd appreciate suggestions.
>
> I have messages associated with a set of locations (zero or more messages
> per location).
I'm struggling to find an appropriate efficient query for an aggregate-type
problem and I'd appreciate suggestions.
I have messages associated with a set of locations (zero or more messages
per location). A cut down test is as follows:
CREATE TABLE location (ident char(4), node point);
INSERT I
