You could hack it using a custom aggregate. NB: you'll want to reset the categorizer_seq every now and then. And this
isn'tsafe for concurrent
queries. You could make it safe for concurrent queries by using a
complex type for STYPE, but I didn't bother. I also haven't debugged
this, but I think it expresses the concept.
CREATE SEQUENCE categorizer_seq;
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION categorizer_func (string, string) RETURNS
bigint VOLATILE CALLED ON NULL INPUT AS '
SELECT CASE WHEN $1 = $2 THEN (SELECT last_value FROM categorizer_seq) ELSE nextval(''categorizer_seq'') END
AScategory
' LANGUAGE SQL;
CREATE AGGREGATE categorizer ( BASETYPE = text, SFUNC = categorizer_func, STYPE = text, INITCOND = ''
);
SELECT col1, count(*)
FROM ( SELECT col1, cagetorizer(col1) AS category FROM mytable ORDER BY col_order
) tmp
GROUP BY (col1, category);
Leon Stringer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wondered if anyone could answer the following question:
>
> If I have a table such as the one below:
>
> col1 col_order
> -----------
> Apple 1
> Apple 2
> Orange 3
> Banana 4
> Apple 5
>
> Is there a way I can get the following results:
>
> Apple 2
> Orange 1
> Banana 1
> Apple 1
>
> i.e. Each row is printed ordered by col_order but consecutive
> appearances of the same col1 result in only a single line in the result
> with the number of consecutive appearances.
>
> Obviously I could store the table as:
>
> col1 col_order col_count
> --------------------------
> Apple 1 2
> Orange 2 1
> Banana 3 1
> Apple 4 1
>
> But since (in my intended table) most rows will have col_count = 1, this
> seems like unnecessary normalization (and semantically "wrong").
>
> Thanks in advance for any help,
>
> Leon Stringer
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
