From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: LEFT JOIN ... |
Date: | 2001-06-18 20:17:00 |
Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.33.0106181716360.22744-100000@mobile.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
Perfect, thank you ... i knew I was overlooking something obvious ... the
query just flies now ...
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> >> Try adding ... AND n.nid = 15748 ... to the WHERE.
>
> > n.nid is the note id ... nl.id is the contact id ...
>
> Ooops, I misread "n.nid = nl.nid" as "n.nid = nl.id". Sorry for the
> bogus advice.
>
> Try rephrasing as
>
> FROM (note_links nl JOIN notes n ON (n.nid = nl.nid))
> LEFT JOIN calendar c ON (n.nid = c.nid)
> WHERE ...
>
> The way you were writing it forced the LEFT JOIN to be done first,
> whereas what you want is for the note_links-to-notes join to be done
> first. See
> http://www.ca.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/7.1/postgres/explicit-joins.html
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-18 20:26:09 | Re: AW: Re: [SQL] behavior of ' = NULL' vs. MySQL vs. Stand ards |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2001-06-18 20:06:40 | Re: AW: Re: [SQL] behavior of ' = NULL' vs. MySQL vs. Stand ards |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2001-06-18 20:18:12 | Re: Subselects, the Oracle way |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-18 20:15:26 | Re: Subselects, the Oracle way |