David Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> [ looks at SQL standard... ] The standard uses "peer" in this way too,
>> so that's where we got the term from. Because of that, I'm unwilling
>> to adopt your suggestion of thinking that "peer" means "member of the
>> same partition".
> I guess rows falling into the same partition could be deemed "member" rows;
> as in having membership in the partition.
Works for me.
> Does the standard provide a word for tuples that get placed into the same
> partition?
Not that I noticed, but I didn't search hard.
The index of SQL:2011 has one entry for "peer", pointing to this
definition under 10.10 <sort specification list>:
i) Two rows that are not distinct with respect to the <sort
specification>s are said to be peers of each other. The relative
ordering of peers is implementation-dependent.
so in their usage it's not even specific to windows. The terminology
for windows seems to be mostly defined in 4.15.14, and I don't see
a term in there for the rows belonging to a partition.
regards, tom lane
