While it may be obvious to you that you want the aggregate functions applied to each set of products found in the account table, this query fails because you have not explicitly specified how the data should be grouped. Therefore, you will need to add a group by clause to specify over which group of rows the aggregate functions should be applied...
I always tend to understand past participles used like that as something kind of like postpositive adjectival phrases that describe the word or words which directly precede them. For instance:
He was a guy sold out to his enemies by his own friends.
This tells me what kind of guy he was in that situation - a guy who was sold out by his own friends.
So, basically I can go ahead and try to understand this sentence as follows:
While it may be obvious to you that you want the aggregate functions that are applied to each set of products found in the account table, this query fails because...
Which does not sound right because the thought obviously sounds incomplete.
Therefore, it leaves me with only one option which is to understand it as a causative like in this example:
I want my hair cut.
And I think this is the only way it should be understood. My first question: am I correct?
On the other hand, it seems like I can easily add the verb to be right after the aggregate functions, thus making it mean basically the same thing but, at the same time, making it much more easier to understand:
While it may be obvious to you that you want the aggregate functions to be applied to each set of products found in the account table, this query fails because...
Which now does make perfect sense. So, my second question is this: by adding the verb to be, do I change anything as far as the meaning goes? If not, are the two completely equivalent then?