Re: 8.2 contrib. "Full Disjunction"

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tzahi Fadida <Tzahi(dot)ML(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Brandon Aiken <BAiken(at)winemantech(dot)com>, Richard Broersma Jr <rabroersma(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Subject: Re: 8.2 contrib. "Full Disjunction"
Date: 2007-06-23 21:33:49
Message-ID: 87r6o29wzm.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

"Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:

> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 07:38:01PM +0300, Tzahi Fadida wrote:
>> Let me simplify it in lamer terms.
>> Basically, you have a cycle in your relations schema. i.e.
>> rel A: att-x, att-y
>> rel B: att-y, att-z
>> rel C: att-z, att-x
>>
>> The only way to join these three without loosing a lot of information (aside
>> from some very weird corner cases which i won't mention here), is to use my
>> full disjunctions which is probably most certainly the only implementation of
>> the operation in existence to calculate the general case (which you can see
>> above).
>
> FWIW, with this simple description I finally worked out what full
> disjunctions are and why you can't do them (efficiently) in SQL.

I'm still lost. I can see how it would be hard to join these together but I'm
not sure what result I would be after.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Naz Gassiep 2007-06-24 02:29:12 Table Names
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2007-06-23 21:04:53 Re: 8.2 contrib. "Full Disjunction"