sumit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for letting know. Could you also let me know the exact
> syntax, I mean, we are not sure whether GROUP BY CUBE(...) is followed by
> a HAVING clause.
Better look at the SQL99 spec for yourself. There's a link to a draft
version in our developer's
Thanks for letting know. Could you also let me know the exact
syntax, I mean, we are not sure whether GROUP BY CUBE(...) is followed by
a HAVING clause. Kindly inform us soon so that we can make the changes and
send you the updated patch and files.
Sumit
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Tom Lane
sumit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In keeping with this, we first define the syntax of a CUBE statement as follows:
> SELECT
> INTO
> FROM
> WHERE
> GROUP BY
> HAVING
> WITH CUBE;
SQL99 defines a GROUP BY CUBE(...) operation, which seems to do the same
thing as this. Why are you using a n
Well, it is true that the information for the ALL rows is present
in the base query. But then adding the ALL rows directly after examining
the result, we think, is not as efficient as it sounds.
Consider the situation you are talking about. Suppose we decide to
add the ALL rows
I'm curious to know why you implement this as a union of queries, since,
unless my understanding is badly awry, you have all the information
necessary for the ALL rows by running the base (ie. without cube) query, Why
not just run that query and then add the ALL rows from examining the
results? IS
