On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Rob Golsteijn
wrote:
>
> The behaviour of Sqlite of w.r.t. name resolving in "group by" caluses
> seems to have changed in the latest version.
> This might lead to errors in previously working SQL code, or worse,
> undetected changes in
Good point. Ok.. I'm convinced.
-Original Message-
From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org]
On Behalf Of James K. Lowden
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 12:27 AM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] name resolutionn in GROUP BY
On Wed
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 14:57:19 -0500
"Marc L. Allen" wrote:
> I'd actually like a compromise. Allow GROUP BY to accept a derived
> name if no base name exists. I realize that's against spec, but
> there's no ambiguity (as it otherwise errors out),
It would also
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Peter Aronson wrote:
> While I can certainly see the value of going with what PostgreSQL and SQL
> Server do on the ORDER BY issue, I have to say that I suspect that Oracle's
> behavior here seem more in line Principle of Least Astonishment.
clever thing to do in the
first place, even if legal.
Peter
From: Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org>
>To: Peter Aronson <pbaron...@att.net>; General Discussion of SQLite Database
><sqlite-users@sqlite.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:05 PM
>Subject: Re: [sql
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Peter Aronson wrote:
> If I understand Dominique's post, Oracle works like SQLite 3.7.15 as
> well. Things only got confusing when we moved from discussing GROUP BY to
> discussing ORDER BY for some reason.
>
There are two separate (though
.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 12:40 PM
>Subject: Re: [sqlite] name resolutionn in GROUP BY
>
>
>On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Igor Tandetnik <i...@tandetnik.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Most DBMS allow sorting (and grouping) by arbitrary expression
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Rob Golsteijn
wrote:
>
> The behaviour of Sqlite of w.r.t. name resolving in "group by" caluses
> seems to have changed in the latest version
>
Two new tickets have been entered:
http://www.sqlite.org/src/info/1c69be2daf
in the GROUP BY clause.
-Original Message-
From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org]
On Behalf Of Richard Hipp
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 3:40 PM
To: General Discussion of SQLite Database
Subject: Re: [sqlite] name resolutionn in GROUP BY
On Wed
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Igor Tandetnik wrote:
>
> Most DBMS allow sorting (and grouping) by arbitrary expressions, which
> means that the standard is not directly applicable. One has to extrapolate.
>
PostgreSQL, MS-SQL, and SQLite 3.7.15 work one way. Oracle and
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Igor Tandetnik wrote:
> Note that "ORDER BY lower(m)" is not valid SQL-92. The standard only
> allows sorting by columns that appear in the SELECT clause, referenced by
> name or by ordinal. It doesn't allow sorting by arbitrary expressions,
sqlite.org [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org]
On Behalf Of Igor Tandetnik
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:27 PM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] name resolutionn in GROUP BY
On 8/14/2013 12:59 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Rob Golsteijn
&
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Dominique Devienne > >wrote:
>> > Not authoritative of course, but Oracle seems to
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Dominique Devienne >wrote:
> > Not authoritative of course, but Oracle seems to agree with the
> previous behavior. --DD
>
> Dominique, can you please try the following
why that changed the
result.
-Original Message-
From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org]
On Behalf Of Igor Tandetnik
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:27 PM
To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org
Subject: Re: [sqlite] name resolutionn in GROUP BY
On 8/14/2013 12
On 8/14/2013 12:59 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Rob Golsteijn
wrote:
create table test(name);
insert into test values (NULL);
insert into test values ('abc');
select count(),
NULLIF(name,'abc') AS name
from test
group by
] name resolutionn in GROUP BY
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Rob Golsteijn
> <rob.golste...@mapscape.eu>wrote:
>
> > create table test(name);
> > insert into test values (NULL);
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Dominique Devienne wrote:
>
> Not authoritative of course, but Oracle seems to agree with the previous
> behavior. --DD
>
Dominique, can you please try the following SQL on Oracle and let me know
what you get:
CREATE TABLE t1(m VARCHAR(4));
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Rob Golsteijn
> wrote:
>
> > create table test(name);
> > insert into test values (NULL);
> > insert into test values ('abc');
> >
> > select count(),
> >
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Rob Golsteijn
wrote:
> create table test(name);
> insert into test values (NULL);
> insert into test values ('abc');
>
> select count(),
>NULLIF(name,'abc') AS name
> from test
> group by lower(name);
>
So the question is,
Hi List,
The behaviour of Sqlite of w.r.t. name resolving in "group by" caluses seems to
have changed in the latest version.
This might lead to errors in previously working SQL code, or worse, undetected
changes in behaviour.
Example
create table test(name);
select min(name) from
21 matches
Mail list logo