Re: [HACKERS] SELECT ... LIMIT (trial implementation)

>
> On Sun, 18 Oct 1998, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > What if someone wants the rows from 500 to the end. Should we allow
> > > the syntax to be:
> > > SELECT ... [LIMIT count] [OFFSET offset]
> > > LIMIT and OFFSET are independent.
> >
> > I like that syntax the best, but remember we are not inventing in
> > a green field here. Isn't this a feature that already exists in
> > other DBMs? We should probably copy their syntax, unless it's
> > truly spectacularly awful...
> >
> > regards, tom lane
>
> None that I have used (VFP, M$ SQL Server) that had 'LIMIT', had 'OFFSET'.
> So it would seem that the very idea of OFFSET is to break with what others
> are doing.
>
> I too like the above syntax.
> Why mimic, when you can do better? Go for it!
>

We have a powerful parser. So we can provide

... [ LIMIT { rows | ALL } ] [ OFFSET skip ]

or

... [ LIMIT [ skip , ] { rows | ALL } ]

at the same time.

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#======================================== jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #