- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:04:46 +0100
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I don't see why it needs to be an error - with no aggregation GROUP BY can be considered to be a a partial sort. Cardinality same as without GROUP BY. This also happens to be a requirement in some apps - results clustered by key but the same number of rows as without grouping. Sorting can make it so, but sorting is potentially more expensive. Andy On 08/06/2010 2:20 PM, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > I would expect this query to be an error, yes. > > I'd also be happy to define an aggregate query as any query in which: > > 1. A GROUP BY clause is present, OR > 2. An aggregate is included in the query projection > > Lee > > On 6/8/2010 9:07 AM, Axel Polleres wrote: >> Student of mine pointed me to a somewhat corner test case: >> >> PREFIX rdf:<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> >> PREFIX rdfs:<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> >> PREFIX dcterms:<http://purl.org/dc/terms/> >> PREFIX foaf:<http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> >> PREFIX mpp:<http://imp.deri.ie/ontology/moviePostProcessing#> >> >> SELECT * >> FROM NAMED<http://imp.deri.ie/vff/ppa/projects> >> FROM NAMED<http://imp.deri.ie/vff/ppa/people> >> WHERE { >> >> ?project rdf:type foaf:Project ; >> rdfs:label ?title . >> ?person rdf:type mpp:Person ; >> rdfs:label ?personName ; >> foaf:currentProject ?project . >> } >> GROUP BY ?project >> >> Actually, I *think* this should be syntactically invalid, as per: >> "In aggregate queries and sub-queries only expressions which have been >> used as GROUP BY expressions, or aggregated expressions (i.e. >> expressions where all variables appear inside an aggregate) can be >> projected." >> >> interestingly, the formulation - strictly speaking - doesn't say what >> an aggregate query is, but GROUP BY without aggregtate doesn't make a >> lot of sense anyways, except that it should have the same effect as >> DISTINCT, right(?), but we still don't want to allow in the presence >> of GROUP BY some non-grouped/aggregated things to be projected, I assume. >> >> Axel >> > > > Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > Find out more about Talis at http://www.talis.com/ > shared innovation™ > > Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be > those of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this > email message and any files that may be attached are confidential, and > for the usage of the intended recipient only. If you are not the > intended recipient, then please return this message to the sender and > delete it. Any use of this e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is > prohibited. > > Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is > registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights > Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 14:13:34 UTC