Richard,
I wanted to thank you for the concatination suggestion ... on testing,
a custom aggregate *was* faster than procedural concatination ... much
faster.
> But - if you don't care about the order of contacts you can define an
> aggregate function:
>
> create aggregate catenate(sfunc1=textcat, basetype=text, stype1=text, initcond1='');
>
> Then group by client and catenate(firstname || ' ' || lastname)
>
> You'll want to read the CREATE AGGREGATE page in the reference manual,
> replace textcat with your own routine that adds a comma and you'll need
> a finalisation routine to strip the final trailing comma.
Actually, if you use a sub-select as your data source, you can control
both the appearance and the order of the catenated values:
SELECT client, catenate(con_name)
FROM (SELECT client, (firstname || ' ' || lastname || ', '
FROM contacts ORDER BY lastname ASC) AS con_list
GROUP BY client;
This seems to work pretty well.
> Note that this is probably not a good idea - the ordering of the
> contacts will not be well-defined. When I asked about this Tom Lane was
> quite surprised that it worked, so no guarantees about long-term suitability.
Hmmm ... this feature is very, very, useful now that I know how to use
it. I'd love to see it hang around for future versions of PgSQL. Tom?
-Josh Berkus
--
______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________
Josh Berkus
Complete information technology [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and data management solutions (415) 565-7293
for law firms, small businesses fax 621-2533
and non-profit organizations. San Francisco
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
