701 reputation
28
bio website
location
age
visits member for 2 years
seen 2 days ago

Feb
18
comment ORDER BY clause is allowed over column that is not in SELECT list?
Or it wouldn't. A table is explicitly defined by the standard to be an "unordered collection of rows". Make that fit with ORDER BY clauses ...
Feb
18
comment ORDER BY clause is allowed over column that is not in SELECT list?
For the problem the OP describes, just putting the ORDER BY before the SELECT will do the job. Don't read too much into these kinds of "flowcharts of query processing". They are rarely intended for being 100% accurate and complete. Rather, they are intended for illustrating somewhat globally what goes on as a consequence of an SQL statement being issued.
Feb
14
answered Where can I find the SQL standard document?
Feb
1
comment What is the correct result for this query?
@Kevin did you ask ISO for permission to copy ? :-)
Jan
29
comment What is the correct result for this query?
Well the key issue is whether it's indeed true that "even if the table has no rows at all, it's still one group of 0 rows". And the standard turns out to be explicit about this : "If there are no grouping columns, then ... is the grouped table consisting of T as its only group". (and that holds even if T is empty - so there is indeed a group.) Further on, the having clause specifies that the condition is applied to each group (in the example thus once). They probably defined it this way to make SUM and COUNT return one row even for empty T's.
Jan
29
answered Looking for a scalable relational database
Jan
24
comment How to tackle a large undocumented database
Think before you comment. The OP explicitly stated that he was the ONLY It guy. So who are those developers ? External contractors perhaps, who were paid for nothing more than just the time it took to build the thing ? Why would those be willing to put in their time for additional support, which company X probably has been unwilling to pay for to begin with ? Or were they perhaps former employees who got laid off because they were too expensive ? Why would they put in their time to help out company X with its problems ? And who is going to get hurt by dropping tables ?
Jan
23
answered Reflexivity axiom for inferring functional dependencies
Dec
14
comment Simplify and optimize a complex query
Then you'll have to make the users accept the 35 seconds (and its further degrading as data volumes grow faster than the hardware speeds do). Forewarning them about this (as in : display a rotating clockwork to make it clear that the machine is working at their service) sometimes works miracles in this respect.
Dec
14
answered Simplify and optimize a complex query
Dec
11
comment Searching transaction logs for changes
you'll have to specify which SQL product you're using.
Dec
3
comment How to best encapsulate monetary values in a database
Option 1 is not anti-relational and it is not true that there isn't a "purely relational solution to this". Except then perhaps for extremely perverse interpretations of "purely relational".
Nov
2
comment “Zero” downtime and minimal space requirements for upgrade to PostgreSQL 9.2
Providing only version numbers without naming the product isn't exactly helpful ...
Oct
19
awarded  Enlightened
Oct
11
comment Is there a reason to use extremely abbreviated table names?
If 30 characters aren't enough to be able to come up with unique names for tables, you have a much more serious problem than any DBMS or development environment can solve : you have a problem with the level of expressiveness of your language and/or vocabulary.
Oct
8
answered Merging tables with a 1 to 1 relationship in a database
Oct
5
comment Why does ANSI SQL define SUM(no rows) as NULL?
I've typed some stuff in that second link you gave ...
Oct
5
comment Why does ANSI SQL define SUM(no rows) as NULL?
The space available in these comments is way too short to discuss all that in the level of detail it deserves. Is there some place else where we can take these discussions to ?
Oct
5
comment Why does ANSI SQL define SUM(no rows) as NULL?
@AlexKuznetsov : sorry to say, but what about SUM ( { 1 3 } ) + SUM ( { 1 4 } ) == SUM ( { 1 3 } UNION { 1 4 } ) ? Remember that relational union is supposed to eliminate duplicates !!!
Oct
5
comment Why does ANSI SQL define SUM(no rows) as NULL?
@SQL kiwi. Are you forgetting about static type checking ? If expressions like SUM() are handled by the static type checker as if they always return an integer, then obviously it should be impossible for the SUM() invocation to sometimes return something that is not an integer (e.g. an empty relation).