• marcos@lemmy.world
    31·
    10 months ago

    Well, if you lose the OOPism of those dots, we can talk.

    Anyway, I’m really against the “having” tag. You need another keyword so that you can apply your filter after the group by?

    • QuazarOmega@lemy.lol
      2·
      10 months ago

      Well, if you lose the OOPism of those dots, we can talk.

      That’s a good point, I didn’t even think about it, maybe a more functional style would make more sense?

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        2·
        10 months ago

        Yes, I do. It’s a lot of effort and hidden functionality to try to paper over the fact that the statements do not compose.

    • Baby Shoggoth [she/her]@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      0·
      10 months ago

      having is less annoying way of not doing needless/bug-prone repetition. if you select someCalculatedValue(someInput) as lol you can add having lol > 42 in mysql, whereas without (ie in pgsql) you’d need to do where someCalculatedValue(someInput) > 42, and make sure changes to that call stay in sync despite how far apart they are in a complex sql statement.

      • Doc Avid MorningtonEnglish
        1·
        10 months ago

        Postgres has the having clause. If it didn’t, that wouldn’t work, as you can’t use aggregates in a where. If you have to make do without having, for some reason, you can use a subquery, something like select * from (select someCalculatedValue(someInput) as lol) as stuff where lol > 42, which is very verbose, but doesn’t cause the sync problem.

        Also, I don’t think they were saying the capability having gives is bad, but that a new query language should be designed such that you get that capability without it.