From: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Cc: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com>
Cc: Rick Schumeyer <rschumeyer@ieee.org>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg, mysql comparison with "group by" clause
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:24:35 -0500
Message-ID: <1129155875.29961.168.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87br1u1jvq.fsf@stark.xeocode.com>
References: <001001c5cea8$77cabc90$0300a8c0@dell8200>
<20051011142658.C54076@megazone.bigpanda.com>
<87br1u1jvq.fsf@stark.xeocode.com>
On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 16:54, Greg Stark wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Rick Schumeyer wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not sure what I was thinking, but I tried the following query in pg:
> > >
> > > SELECT * FROM t GROUP BY state;
> > >
> > > pg returns an error.
> > >
> > > Mysql, OTOH, returns the first row for each state. (The first row with
> > > "AK", the first row with "PA", etc.)
> > >
> > > I'm no SQL expert, but it seems to me that the pg behavior is correct, and
> > > the mysql result is just weird. Am I correct?
> >
> > In your case, it sounds like the mysql result is wrong. I believe SQL99
> > would allow it if the other columns were functionally dependant upon state
> > (as there'd by definition only be one value for the other columns per
> > group).
>
> I believe this is a documented feature.
Hehe. When I turn on my windshield wipers and my airbag deploys, is it
a documented "feature" if the dealership told me about this behaviour
ahead of time? In much the same way, while this behaviour may be
documented by MySQL, I can't imagine it really being called a feature.
But at least this misbehaviour is documented. However, I think most
people in the MySQL universe just stumble onto it by accident when they
try it and it works. I'd at least prefer it to throw a warning or
notice or something.
> MySQL treats "select a,b from t group by a" equivalently to Postgres's
> "select distinct on (a) a,b from t"
>
> I suppose "equivalent" isn't quite true. It's more general since it allows
> aggregate functions as well. The equivalently general Postgres syntax is to
> have a first() aggregate function and do "select a,first(b) from t group by a".
A Subselect would let you do such a thing as well, and while it's more
complicated to write, it is likely to be easier to tell just what it's
doing.
> I'm sure it's very convenient.
Not always, but I'd rather get the right answer with difficulty than the
wrong one with ease. :)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: smarlowe@g2switchworks.com, gsstark@mit.edu, sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com, rschumeyer@ieee.org
Subject: Re: pg, mysql comparison with "group by" clause
In-Reply-To: <1129155875.29961.168.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox