Re: Optimization rules for semi and anti joins

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Optimization rules for semi and anti joins
Date: 2009-02-11 01:41:45
Message-ID: 28499.1234316505@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Cripes! I just had an idea and it looks like the buggers beat me to it :(
> http://www.google.com/patents?id=4bqBAAAAEBAJ&dq=null+aware+anti-join

I wonder if the USPTO is really clueless enough to accept this?
Claim 1 would give Oracle ownership of the definition of NOT IN,
and few of the other claims seem exactly non-obvious either.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonah H. Harris 2009-02-11 02:06:28 Re: Optimization rules for semi and anti joins
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-02-11 01:23:12 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Update autovacuum to use reloptions instead of a system catalog,