Re: Grouping by aggregates in SQL

From: Roy Hann <specially_at_processed.almost.meat>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:50:58 -0500
Message-ID: <>

Tegiri Nenashi wrote:

> On Apr 27, 4:33 am, Roy Hann <specia..._at_processed.almost.meat> wrote:
>> c.d.t. is the wrong forum to ask this question, but I reckon it's a
>> good place to find folk who've Got a Clue (tm).  :-)
>> Which SQL dialects have you encountered that support aggregates in the
>> GROUP BY clause?  
> In 99% of the cases the content of the GROUP BY clause is
> unambiguously defined by what a user wrote in the SELECT clause. The
> other 1% is covered by the inline view facility. Why do you need
> aggregates in the GROUP BY clause?

Just to be absolutely clear on this, I *don't* want aggregates in the GROUP BY clause. SQL is nasty enough already.

I have been looking at a piece of software that I would like to port to a DBMS that doesn't support aggregates in the GROUP BY, and I am curious whether that is a widely supported feature.

Received on Mon Apr 27 2009 - 17:50:58 CEST

Original text of this message