| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: DELETE syntax on JOINS |
| Date: | 2009-08-25 14:19:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20886.1251209996@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> You would have to write something like
> UPDATE foo set a = (select aa from bar where...)
> b = (select bb from bar where...)
> and then the optimizer would have to notice the duplicates and
> consolidate them? That seems inconvenient (and fragile).
Well, that's why the spec nowadays allows you to write
UPDATE foo SET (a,b) = (select aa,bb from bar where ...)
But we haven't got that, and if we did it would generate a nestloop
plan. Getting to the point of absolute performance equivalence between
subqueries and joins would take a *lot* of work; I'm not even sure it's
possible at all. And once we'd done all that work there would still
remain the fact that people are accustomed to using join syntax instead.
There's a lot of existing code out there that would be a lot easier
to port to PG if we supported that style (which was exactly the point
made by the OP).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-08-25 14:39:29 | Re: Bug in date arithmetic |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2009-08-25 14:08:10 | Re: DELETE syntax on JOINS |