c.d.t. is the wrong forum to ask this question, but I reckon it's a
good place to find folk who've Got a Clue (tm). :-)

Which SQL dialects have you encountered that support aggregates in the
GROUP BY clause?

That's not something I'd ever have tried if I hadn't just seen it being
tried. I take little interest the SQL standards and stopped studying
anything post SQL92, but every once in a while I stub my toe on
something and have to switch on the lights whether I like it or not.

--
Roy

On Apr 27, 4:33*am, Roy Hann <specia... (AT) processed (DOT) almost.meat> wrote:
In 99% of the cases the content of the GROUP BY clause is
unambiguously defined by what a user wrote in the SELECT clause. The
other 1% is covered by the inline view facility. Why do you need
aggregates in the GROUP BY clause?

Tegiri Nenashi wrote:

Just to be absolutely clear on this, I *don't* want aggregates in
the GROUP BY clause. SQL is nasty enough already.

I have been looking at a piece of software that I would like to port to
a DBMS that doesn't support aggregates in the GROUP BY, and I am
curious whether that is a widely supported feature.

--
Roy

<<Snipped>>
and I am
systems on the market).

Hope this helps...

cimode (AT) hotmail (DOT) com wrote:

Well it answers the question anyway. Thanks.

--
Roy