first query
=> SELECT * FROM test1;
x | y
---+---
a | 3
c | 2
b | 5
a | 1
(4 rows)
second query
=> SELECT x FROM test1 GROUP BY x;
x
---
a
b
c
(3 rows)
In the second query, we could not have written SELECT * FROM test1 GROUP BY x,
because there is no single value for the column y that co
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> I don't know that the existing wording is the most clear, but it is correct.
Perhaps it'd be better to write "... we could not have written
SELECT x, y FROM test1 GROUP BY x, because ..." ? The first
half of the example uses "SELECT *", and this bit was meant
to be
Just noticed you replied to me only. Send replies to the list. You can
leave individuals cc'd. The convention here is also to inline your replies
- top-posting is undesirable.
In any case, in order to write "select *" you have to group on both x and y
at the same time. If you group on either c
On Wednesday, July 24, 2024, David Rowley wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2024, 12:57 am David G. Johnston, <
> david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think you mis-copied the query - the one on the page has “select x”,
>> not “select *”.
>>
>
> That text exists as it was quoted. What the report is la
On Thu, 25 Jul 2024, 12:57 am David G. Johnston,
wrote:
> I think you mis-copied the query - the one on the page has “select x”, not
> “select *”.
>
That text exists as it was quoted. What the report is lacking is an
indication of what is wrong with the text.
David
>
On Tuesday, July 23, 2024, PG Doc comments form
wrote:
> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
>
> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/16/queries-table-expressions.html
> Description:
>
> >> In the second query, we could not have written SELECT * FROM test1 GROUP
>
