Re: Anti join confusion

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Anti join confusion
Date: 2025-02-24 16:30:00
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYeU8oA+s7h68r6C+NM=WkbXTee9ffR5tXymRLYGuoO8Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 8:08 AM wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Actually ,Many fork postgresql databases have already implemented ,For example, if the relevant field has a non-null constraint ,Many databases can do the same thing as not exist ( MySQL ,SQL Server,Oracle)

I'm not surprised to hear it. Long-time PostgreSQL users just don't
use NOT IN, so it's fine, but anyone coming from another database gets
hosed. I think it would be good to put some effort into improving this
area, but I do not have time to work on it myself.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sagar Shedge 2025-02-24 16:55:54 Re: Extend postgres_fdw_get_connections to return remote backend pid
Previous Message Benoit Lobréau 2025-02-24 16:21:41 Re: Fix logging for invalid recovery timeline