Thanks, Joe and Tom. You cleared the webs out of my brain. I used HAVING before, but not lately and I got rusty.<br
/>Mark<br /><br /> Tom Lane wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:11074.1268925073@sss.pgh.pa.us" type="cite"><pre wrap="">Mark
Fenbers<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Mark.Fenbers@noaa.gov"><Mark.Fenbers@noaa.gov></a> writes:
</pre><blockquotetype="cite"><pre wrap="">I want to do:
SELECT id, count(*) FROM mytable WHERE count(*) > 2 GROUP BY id; </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">
</pre><blockquotetype="cite"><pre wrap="">But this doesn't work because Pg won't allow aggregate functions in a
where clause. </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">
Use HAVING, not WHERE. The way you are trying to write the query is
meaningless because WHERE filters rows before grouping/aggregation.
HAVING filters afterwards, which is when it makes sense to put a
condition on count(*).
regards, tom lane
</pre></blockquote>