From: | Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org> |
Cc: | Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Idea: Avoid JOINs by using path expressions to follow FKs |
Date: | 2021-03-30 19:02:17 |
Message-ID: | CAMsGm5fmZSaMnHEOLxGS+Ekg6jNsOSgfRu3qd8fxUo=Pfky=ww@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 14:30, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org> wrote:
If the expression ends with a column_name,
> you get the value for the column.
>
> If the expression ends with a constraint_name,
> you get the referenced table as a record.
>
Can’t you just leave off the “ends with a column_name” part? If you want
one of its columns, just put .column_name:
table -> constraint -> ... -> constraint . column_name
Then you know that -> expects a constraint_name and only that to its right.
Also, should the join be a left join, which would therefore return a NULL
when there is no matching record? Or could we have a variation such as ->?
to give a left join (NULL when no matching record) with -> using an inner
join (record is not included in result when no matching record).
For the record I would find something like this quite useful. I constantly
find myself joining in code lookup tables and the like, and while from a
mathematical view it’s just another join, explicitly listing the table in
the FROM clause of a large query does not assist with readability to say
the least.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Zhang | 2021-03-30 19:05:10 | Re: Support tab completion for upper character inputs in psql |
Previous Message | igor levshin | 2021-03-30 18:51:26 | Re: Failed assertion on standby while shutdown |