From: | Christof Petig <christof(dot)petig(at)wtal(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Martin Neimeier <nei(at)ibn(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Error with union in sub-selects |
Date: | 1904-01-02 15:24:25 |
Message-ID: | 83DC79A8.1A0AB07D@wtal.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Martin Neimeier wrote:
> Hello,
> some additional informations:
>
> - if i execute the subselect alone, it works fine !.
> - The same select statement works with sybase and oracle, so i think its a legal statement.
> - After reading in the sql2-standard, i have found nothing which restricts unions in sub-selects.
>
Create a temp table (I did it this way):
instead of
select x from table where x in (select A union select B);
create temp table t1 (x type_of_x; );
insert into t1 select A union select B;
select x from table where exists (select t1.x from t1 where t1.x=table.x);
Using exists instead of in circumvents another restriction of PostgreSQL.
Tom Lane said, these bugs would be addressed during the query tree reorganization (7.2, in 2001)
>
> (I don't want to use another rdbms ... i want to use PostgreSQL :-)))))
>
> If somebody has a workaround, then i am the happiest person for the day.
Could be ... if you can live with this ...
Christof
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oliver Elphick | 1998-11-25 23:48:51 | Failures with arrays |
Previous Message | Robert E. Bruccoleri | 0100-07-27 00:21:08 | Re: Index selection on a large table |