elygre 6 hours ago

Let me reference fields as I create them:

  select xxxxx as a
       , a * 2 as b
  • zX41ZdbW 5 hours ago

    This will be great! One of the things ClickHouse has had since 2016.

  • cyberax 3 hours ago

    SQL needs to have `select` as the _last_ part, not the first. LINQ has had this for 2 decades by now: "from table_a as a, table_b as b where ... select a.blah, b.duh".

    • cryptonector 2 hours ago

      This is not relevant to GP's point. This is a separate topic, which... I don't really care, but I know a lot of people want to be able to write SQL as you suggest, and it's not hard to implement, so, sure.

      Though, I think it might have to be table sources, then `SELECT`, then `WHERE`, then ... because you might want to refer to output columns in the `WHERE` clause.

      • cyberax an hour ago

        Ideally, it needs to be "from", then arbitrary number of something like `let` statements that can introduce new variables, maybe interspersed with where-s, and then finally "select".

        "select" can also be replaced with annotations, something like: `from table_1 t1 let t1.column_1 as @output_1 where ...` and then just collect all the @-annotated variables.

        I need to write a lot of SQL, and it's so clumsy. Every time I need a CTE, I have to look into the documentation for the exact syntax.

parpfish 26 minutes ago

this seems to ignore the fact that you can group by a column that isn't in the select statement.

it's not something that i've found a particular use for, but it IS a thing you can do.

theodpHN 2 hours ago

So, why not a SORT BY ALL or a GROUPSORT BY ALL, too? Not always what you want (e.g., when you're ranking on a summarized column), but it often alphabetic order on the GROUP BY columns is just what the doctor ordered! :-)

chewxy 3 hours ago

BigQuery has that and I've been loving using it since they introduced it

Exuma 7 hours ago

Also just let me reference the damn alias in a group by, FUCK

  • sbuttgereit 6 hours ago

    At least in PostgreSQL, both by alias and ordinal are possible:

      localhost(from SCB-MUSE-BOXX).postgres.scb.5432 [Sun Nov 16 12:02:15 PST 2025]
  > create table test (a_key integer primary key, a_group integer, a_val numeric);
  CREATE TABLE
  Time: 3.102 ms

  localhost(from SCB-MUSE-BOXX).postgres.scb.5432 [Sun Nov 16 12:02:25 PST 2025]
  > insert into test (a_key, a_group, a_val) values (1, 1, 5.5), (2, 1, 2.6), (3, 2, 1.1), (4, 2, 6.5);
  INSERT 0 4
  Time: 2.302 ms

  localhost(from SCB-MUSE-BOXX).postgres.scb.5432 [Sun Nov 16 12:02:58 PST 2025]
  > select a_group AS my_group, sum(a_val) from test group by my_group;
   my_group | sum
  ----------+-----
          2 | 7.6
          1 | 8.1
  (2 rows)
  
  Time: 4.124 ms
  localhost(from SCB-MUSE-BOXX).postgres.scb.5432 [Sun Nov 16 12:03:15 PST 2025]
  > select a_group AS my_group, sum(a_val) from test group by 1;
   my_group | sum
  ----------+-----
          2 | 7.6
          1 | 8.1
  (2 rows)
  
  Time: 0.360 ms
  • zX41ZdbW 4 hours ago

    I think it should be not only in GROUP BY, but in every context, e.g., inside expressions in SELECT, WHERE, etc.

  • kermatt 5 hours ago

    PostgreSQL and DuckDB support this, which makes MSSQL feel like a dinosaur in context.

  • mberning 7 hours ago

    Some do. It would also be nice to reference by ordinal number similar to order by. Very handy for quick and dirty queries. I can see the issue though that people start to lean on it too much.

cm2187 5 hours ago

Snowflake has that, once you start using it, it's painful to go back.

wvbdmp an hour ago

What? No! I want GROUP BY * and more importantly GROUP BY mytable.*

Inviz 2 hours ago

What's wrong with GROUP BY 1,2,3?