| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Scott Bailey <artacus(at)comcast(dot)net>, hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Range types |
| Date: | 2009-12-17 14:43:57 |
| Message-ID: | 1295.1261061037@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Hm, how would you do it with LATERAL? The problem is not so much
>> composition as the need for a variable number of rounds of
>> composition.
> Let's have a try at it:
> select p2_member, array_accum(p1)
> from unnest(p2) as p2_member
> lateral (select period_except(p1_member, p2_member)
> from unnest(p1) p1_member) as x(p1);
I don't think that does it. Maybe I misunderstand LATERAL, but what
that looks like to me is that each p1 will be separately filtered by
each p2, giving rise to a distinct element in the output. What we
need is for each p1 to be filtered by *all* p2's, successively
(though in any order).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-12-17 14:56:36 | Re: Hot Standby and prepared transactions |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-17 14:35:39 | Re: NOT IN Doesn't use Anti Joins? |