From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ISTM the problem here is the lack of any ordering operator for POINT, > which defeats GROUP BY, *plus* the lack of any aggregate you might use > for an aggregate-based solution. This is not really a language failing > but a problem with an impoverished datatype.
Yes, I agree completely. If I were doing this again from scratch I'd be using PostGIS, but I've got a lot of data that depends on POINT. > So, if you don't like > Bruno's subselect-based workaround, the dummy aggregate seems the way > to go. I've actually implemented the dummy aggregate now, and it works fine. So does Bruno's subselect (thank you Bruno), and the efficiency seems to be similar in each case. > SQL99 contains a whole bunch of verbiage whose intent seems to be that > if you GROUP BY a unique or primary-key column, you can reference the > other columns of that table without aggregation (essentially, the > system treats them as implicitly GROUP BY'd). Sooner or later we'll > probably get around to implementing that, and that would solve your > problem as long as you declare location.ident properly. That makes a lot of sense, though I imagine there are higher priorities. Thanks for your help. Julian Scarfe ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
