Timeline for Alternative to Having and Group By
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 18, 2018 at 11:40 | comment | added | Akina |
@Vérace Of course. "in the DB classes" (c) by topicstarter, "theory is not interesting for me" is my phrase.
|
|
| May 18, 2018 at 11:17 | comment | added | Akina | @Vérace Check the authors of that phrases... | |
| May 18, 2018 at 11:01 | comment | added | Akina |
@MichaelKutz You mean implicit HAVING with explicit GROUP BY only, is it?
|
|
| May 18, 2018 at 10:48 | comment | added | ypercubeᵀᴹ | @MichaelKutz please post an answer ;) | |
| May 18, 2018 at 10:21 | comment | added | Michael Kutz |
@Akina - use a CTE or subquery. Add a WITH clause on the outside to simulate a HAVING clause.
|
|
| May 18, 2018 at 9:05 | comment | added | ypercubeᵀᴹ | @HenriqueBarcelos the code in the answer is standard SQL. It uses basic SQL (SELECT, FROM, IN, CASE, SUM, MAX) | |
| May 18, 2018 at 8:58 | comment | added | Akina | @HenriqueBarcelos "pure SQL" What do You mean? T-SQL? SQL-2011 std? etc.? Regardless I don't know, theory is not interesting for me... sorry. | |
| May 18, 2018 at 8:45 | comment | added | Henrique Barcelos | Another question, is your code in pure SQL? | |
| May 18, 2018 at 8:11 | comment | added | Henrique Barcelos | Not in one query, I need in different queries. You can use different approaches for each. | |
| May 18, 2018 at 7:57 | history | answered | Akina | CC BY-SA 4.0 |