[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-2799?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16752564#comment-16752564
]
Julian Hyde commented on CALCITE-2799:
--------------------------------------
I do, however, believe we should allow aliases for calls to aggregate
functions. For example, the following should be legal is {{isHavingAlias}} and
{{isGroupByAlias}} are true:
{code}select dept + 10 as dept10,
count(*) as c,
avg(salary + commission) as remuneration
from emp
group by dept10
having c > 3 and remuneration > 50000{code}
> Allow alias in having clause for aggregate functions
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CALCITE-2799
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-2799
> Project: Calcite
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 1.18.0
> Reporter: Arina Ielchiieva
> Assignee: Julian Hyde
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 1.19.0
>
>
> Currently alias is not allowed in having for aggregate functions.
> MySql supports such cases and taking into account that alias in having clause
> is allowed only for the following conformance levels: MYSQL_5, LENIENT,
> BABEL, it makes sense to allow alias in having for aggregate functions.
> {noformat}
> /**
> * Whether to allow aliases from the {@code SELECT} clause to be used as
> * column names in the {@code HAVING} clause.
> *
> * <p>Among the built-in conformance levels, true in
> * {@link SqlConformanceEnum#BABEL},
> * {@link SqlConformanceEnum#LENIENT},
> * {@link SqlConformanceEnum#MYSQL_5};
> * false otherwise.
> */
> boolean isHavingAlias();
> {noformat}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
