Re: Proposed Query Planner TODO items

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: johnnnnnn <john(at)phaedrusdeinus(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Proposed Query Planner TODO items
Date: 2003-12-05 20:14:37
Message-ID: 200312051214.37204.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

John,

> > SELECT t1.a, t2.b
> > FROM t1, t2
> > WHERE t1.a = t2.a
> > AND t1.c = x
> > AND t1.f IN (m, n, o)
> > AND t2.d = v
> > AND t2.e BETWEEN j AND k
> > UNION ALL

> Shouldn't that be "UNION" instead of "UNION ALL"? You don't want
> duplicate rows, if i'm not mistaken.

Yes, you're correct; I copied UNION ALL from a test case which was not
generic. In general, one would want UNION.

--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2003-12-05 20:41:26 Re: Proposed Query Planner TODO items
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2003-12-05 19:08:05 Proposed Query Planner TODO items