This is my query:
SELECT autor.entwickler,anwendung.name
FROM autor
left join anwendung
on anwendung.name = autor.anwendung;
entwickler | name
PostgreSQL doesn't currently allow ambiguous GROUP BY
statements where the results are dependent on the order the table is scanned, the plan used, etc. That's how the standard says it should work AFAIK, but some databases (like MySQL versions prior to 5.7) permit looser queries that just pick the first value encountered for elements appearing in the SELECT
list but not in GROUP BY
.
In PostgreSQL, you should use DISTINCT ON for this kind of query.
You want to write something like:
SELECT DISTINCT ON (anwendung.name) anwendung.name, autor.entwickler
FROM author
left join anwendung on anwendung.name = autor.anwendung;
(Syntax corrected based on follow-up comment)
This is a bit like MySQL 5.7's ANY_VALUE(...)
pseudo-function for group by
, but in reverse - it says that the values in the distinct on
clause must be unique, and any value is acceptable for the columns not specified.
Unless there's an ORDER BY
, there is no gurantee as to which values are selected. You should usually have an ORDER BY
for predictability.
It's also been noted that using an aggregate like min()
or max()
would work. While this is true - and will lead to reliable and predictable results, unlike using DISTINCT ON
or an ambigious GROUP BY
- it has a performance cost due to the need for extra sorting or aggregation, and it only works for ordinal data types.
Craig's answer and your resulting query in the comments share the same flaw: The table anwendung
is at the right side of a LEFT JOIN
, which contradicts your obvious intent. You care about anwendung.name
and pick autor.entwickler
arbitrarily. I'll come back to that further down.
It should be:
SELECT DISTINCT ON (1) an.name, au.entwickler
FROM anwendung an
LEFT JOIN autor au ON an.name = au.anwendung;
DISTINCT ON (1)
is just a syntactical shorthand for DISTINCT ON (an.name)
. Positional references are allowed here.
If there are multiple developers (entwickler
) for an app (anwendung
) one developer is picked arbitrarily. You have to add an ORDER BY
clause if you want the "first" (alphabetically according to your locale):
SELECT DISTINCT ON (1) an.name, au.entwickler
FROM anwendung an
LEFT JOIN autor au ON an.name = au.anwendung
ORDER BY 1, 2;
As @mdahlman implied, a more canonical way would be:
SELECT an.name, min(au.entwickler) AS entwickler
FROM autor au
LEFT JOIN anwendung an ON an.name = au.anwendung
GROUP BY an.name;
Or, better yet, clean up your data model, implement the n:m relationship between anwendung
and autor
properly, add surrogate primary keys as anwendung
and autor
are hardly unique, enforce relational integrity with foreign key constraints and adapt your resulting query:
CREATE TABLE autor (
autor_id serial PRIMARY KEY -- surrogate primary key
, autor text NOT NULL);
INSERT INTO autor VALUES
(1, 'mike')
, (2, 'joe')
, (3, 'jane') -- worked on two apps
, (4, 'susi'); -- has no part in any apps (yet)
CREATE TABLE anwendung (
anwendung_id serial PRIMARY KEY -- surrogate primary key
, anwendung text UNIQUE); -- disallow duplicate names
INSERT INTO anwendung VALUES
(1, 'foo') -- has 3 authors linked to it
, (2, 'bar')
, (3, 'shark')
, (4, 'bait'); -- has no authors attached to it (yet).
CREATE TABLE autor_anwendung ( -- you might name this table "entwickler"
autor_id integer REFERENCES autor ON UPDATE CASCADE ON DELETE CASCADE
, anwendung_id integer REFERENCES anwendung ON UPDATE CASCADE ON DELETE CASCADE
, PRIMARY KEY (autor_id, anwendung_id)
);
INSERT INTO autor_anwendung VALUES
(1, 1)
,(2, 1)
,(3, 1)
,(2, 2)
,(3, 3);
This query retrieves one row per app with one associated author (the 1st one alphabetically) or NULL if there are none:
SELECT DISTINCT ON (1) an.anwendung, au.autor
FROM anwendung an
LEFT JOIN autor_anwendung au_au USING (anwendung_id)
LEFT JOIN autor au USING (autor_id)
ORDER BY 1, 2;
Result:
name | entwickler
-------+-----------------
bait |
bar | joe
foo | jane
shark | jane