From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "david(dot)schruth" <dschruth(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: JOIN a UNION |
Date: | 2009-08-06 18:33:57 |
Message-ID: | 162867790908061133o14097d2dv80f650da9c15a2f6@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hello
SELECT ... FROM
(SELECT ... FROM A
UNION ALL
SELECT FROM B) s1
JOIN C IN C.z = s1.z;
Regards
Pavel Stehule
2009/8/6 david.schruth <dschruth(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> I just realized what I posted was perfectly valid SQL. The following
> is more what I had in mind:
>
> (SELECT x,y,z FROM A
> UNION
> SELECT x,y,z FROM B)
> AB JOIN C ON C.z = AB.z
>
> This version certainly does throw an error.
>
> Basically I'm wondering if there is a way to get Postgres to treat the
> result of a UNION as a table on which I could perform subsequent
> operations (like a JOIN).
>
> On Aug 6, 10:43 am, "david.schruth" <dschr(dot)(dot)(dot)(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Simple question:
>>
>> Is there a way to do something like the following:
>>
>> SELECT x,y,z FROM A
>> UNION
>> SELECT x,y,z FROM B
>> JOIN C ON C.z = B.z
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Dave
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2009-08-06 18:35:29 | Re: Empty Updates, ON UPDATE triggers and Rules |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-08-06 18:30:52 | Re: Empty Updates, ON UPDATE triggers and Rules |