From: | Dario Bahena Tapia <dario(dot)mx(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Parentheses in FROM clause and evaluation order. |
Date: | 2005-08-16 02:20:35 |
Message-ID: | 3d104d6f0508151920fcc8a03@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Ok, thanks for the responses guys.
Then, in the case where the final result is the same, could we think
the parentheses in the FROM clause, as a tool to clarify the query to
the user? Since in the end, this order could be changed by the
implementation for performance reasons.
salu2
dario estepario ...
2005/8/15, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Dario Bahena Tapia wrote:
> >> The final result seems to be the same, I just was curious about the
> >> standard behavior. Does the SQl says something about this execution
> >> order?
>
> > I believe SQL defines the order to pay attention to parens, so A join (B
> > join C) style clauses result in a "table" being derived from B join C and
> > another from A joined with that table.
>
> SQL only constrains the results, though. It does not forbid the
> implementation from doing the work in whatever way seems best to it,
> so long as the results are the same (and "same" does not consider
> row ordering).
>
> For example, SQL92 3.3.4.4 says
>
> A conforming implementation is not required to perform the exact
> sequence of actions defined in the General Rules, but shall achieve
> the same effect on SQL-data and schemas as that sequence.
>
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2005-08-16 04:54:13 | ARRAYs and INDEXes ... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-08-16 02:02:40 | Re: Parentheses in FROM clause and evaluation order. |