Re: More Aggregates questions ... Another scalar parameter for GROUP_CONCAT?

On 2010-10-07, at 18:53, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> On 10/7/2010 10:24 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> > On 2010-10-07, at 02:50, Axel Polleres wrote:
>> >
>> >> When thinking about practical examples for GROUP_CONCAT, I can
>> hardly think of any where I wouldn't want to impose an order...
>> >> ... thus, what's the opinions about adding another scalar parameter
>> "order" which takes as parameter "DESC"|"ASC"
>> >>
>> I agree that it makes GROUP_CONCAT rather more useful to be able to
>> control the order.
>> On 07/10/10 11:18, Steve Harris wrote:
>>> My feeling is that you need ORDER BY expression to make it useful.
>> Agreed.
> I'll be a dissenting voice here -- we use GROUP_CONCAT all the time without ordering, and I'm not totally clear what use cases are addressed by ordering *based on the concatenated string values*. Could you help me understand this?

To be clear. I don't think that it needs ordering to be useful - I use it without ordering in SQL all the time.

I think that for /ordering/ to be useful it needs to be by expression, I have usecases for ORDER BY DESC(strlen(?name)) for e.g.

> (I see how useful it would be to be able to order the values based on some other variable from the group in order to have consistent orderings across multiple GROUP_CONCAT invocations within a project list, but that's different from what I think I'm reading here...)

- Steve

Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD

Received on Thursday, 7 October 2010 20:49:28 UTC