Why couldn't an RDBMS such as postgres interpret a SELECT that omits the GROUP BY as implicitly grouping by all the columns that aren't part of an aggregate? If I do this, Postgres throws an exception that I cannot SELECT a series of columns including an aggregate without a corresponding GROUP BY clause. But it knew to throw the error, right? It must have some method of knowing which columns aren't part of an aggregate. Or is it that a column might not have an aggregate, but still be hard to figure out how to group by it? But how would that happen? If I omit something from GROUP BY, it throws another exception. If I put something there that doesn't belong, I get a different exception. So it already knows how to do this! :P -- Regards, Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@xxxxxxxxx https://github.com/rpdelaney GPG ID: 4096R/311C 10F2 26E0 14E3 8BA4 3B06 B634 36F1 C9E7 771B
Attachment:
pgpNnzTFmbSMJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
