From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Lewis <mlewis(at)entrata(dot)com>, Mithran Kulasekaran <mithranakulasekaran(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Postgres views cannot use both union and join/where |
Date: | 2021-10-20 13:58:55 |
Message-ID: | 2133339.1634738335@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021, Michael Lewis <mlewis(at)entrata(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 3:48 PM Mithran Kulasekaran <
>> mithranakulasekaran(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> create view template_view (id, name, description, is_staged) as
>>> select t.id,t.name, t.description, false as is_staged
>>> from template t
>>> left join template_staging ts on t.name = ts.name and ts.name is null
>> Does that work? I've only seen that type of logic written as-
>> left join template_staging ts on t.name = ts.name
>> where ts.name is null
> The are functionally equivalent, though the timing of the expression
> evaluation differs slightly.
No, not at all. Michael's version correctly implements an anti-join,
where the first version does not. The reason is that the WHERE clause
"sees" the column value post-JOIN, whereas the JOIN/ON clause "sees"
values pre-JOIN.
Assuming that the '=' operator is strict, the first query's ON clause
really reduces to constant false, so that you just get a null-extended
image of the left table. That's almost surely not what's wanted.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2021-10-20 14:29:51 | Re: Postgres views cannot use both union and join/where |
Previous Message | Ashkil Dighin | 2021-10-20 10:51:38 | Re: Lock contention high |