| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name>, Atomic_Sheep <atomic(dot)sheep(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Cross-Product JOIN? |
| Date: | 2023-05-25 04:52:14 |
| Message-ID: | 680324ce9104e3d8e9d93b040c152b8bd47b361e.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Wed, 2023-05-24 at 21:10 +0200, Erik Wienhold wrote:
> > On 24/05/2023 15:46 CEST Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name> wrote:
> >
> > Personally, I think it should read cartesian product because cross product is
> > an overloaded term and cartesian product is used more often in the documentation
> > overall.
> >
> > But the same page [0] also uses cross product when talking about grouping sets.
> >
> > [0] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/queries-table-expressions.html
>
> Here's a patch that fixes those two places.
+1
"Cross product" seems to be a misbegotten hybrid of "cross join" and
"Cartesian product".
Since we are talking about Cartesian products: is the term "Cartesian join"
used anywhere?
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Erik Wienhold | 2023-05-25 06:59:55 | Re: Cross-Product JOIN? |
| Previous Message | Erik Wienhold | 2023-05-24 19:10:37 | Re: Cross-Product JOIN? |