On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 11:16 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I've just read a paper that says PostgreSQL doesn't do this.
> What does he mean by that exactly, and which PG version is he looking
> at?  As Greg notes, we do know how to push down non-aggregated
> conditions, but I'm not sure that's what he's thinking of.  

Yes, it was specifically non-aggregated conditions.

> There have
> been some relevant bug fixes, eg
> 2004-07-10 14:39  tgl
>       * src/backend/executor/: nodeAgg.c (REL7_4_STABLE), nodeAgg.c: Test
>       HAVING condition before computing targetlist of an Aggregate node. 
>       This is required by SQL spec to avoid failures in cases like  
>       SELECT sum(win)/sum(lose) FROM ... GROUP BY ... HAVING sum(lose) >
>       0; AFAICT we have gotten this wrong since day one.  Kudos to Holger
>       Jakobs for being the first to notice.
> Also, it's still true that we run all the aggregate transition functions
> in parallel, so if you were hoping to use HAVING on an aggregate
> condition to prevent an overflow or something in the state accumulation
> function for a targetlist aggregate, you'd lose.  But I don't see any
> way to avoid that without scanning the data twice, which we're surely
> not gonna do.

I'll send you the paper off-line, there's some more interesting stuff
also. p.12

  Simon Riggs             
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at


Reply via email to