On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 14:02:34 -0500, Oisin Glynn <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > But the where clause defines the result of the aggregate function (in this > case the SUM)? Not really. > Is the only reason for needing the GROUP BY CLAUSE is because the aggregate > function demands it? Note that there is also a join to a table d. So that values in d are being summed up based on some connection from d to the other 3 tables. > If so could something like the following work where we pass the where clause > conditions into the function and it performs the aggregate function and > returns.. I am guessing this would be extremely inefficient? > > select A.*,B.*,C.*,my_cheating_sum(a.id,b.id,c.id) from a,b,c, > where some conditions; If that function did a select from d, you could make this work, but it would likely be much slower than doing it in one SQL statement. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
