> On Wednesday, September 11, 2024, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> test=# SELECT row_number() IGNORE NULLS OVER w FROM t1 WINDOW w AS (ORDER
>> BY i);
>> row_number
>> ------------
>> 1
>> 2
>> (2 rows)
>>
>> The t1 table only contains NULL rows. By using IGNORE NULLS, I think
>> it's no wonder that a user expects 0 rows returned, if there's no
>> mention in the docs that actually IGNORE NULLS/RESPECT NULLS are just
>> ignored in some window functions.
>>
>
> My nieve understanding of the nulls treatment is computations are affected,
> therefore a zero-argument function is incapable of abiding by this clause
> (it should error…).
Yes. I actually claimed that row_number() should error out if the
clause is provided.
> Instead I think it's better that other than lead, lag, first_value,
> last_value and nth_value each window function errors out if IGNORE
> NULLS/RESPECT NULL are passed to these window functions.
> Your claim that this should somehow produce zero rows
> confuses me on two fronts. One, window function should be incapable of
> affecting how many rows are returned. The query must output two rows
> regardless of the result of the window expression (it should at worse
> produce the null value). Two, to produce said null value you have to be
> ignoring the row due to the order by clause seeing a null. But the order
> by isn’t part of the computation.
Well I did not claim that. I just gave a possible example what users
could misunderstand. Probably my example was not so good.
Best reagards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS K.K.
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en/
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
