From: | "Henry B(dot) Hotz" <hotz(at)jpl(dot)nasa(dot)gov> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stefan Weiss <spaceman-4b9f8-20030703(at)ausgehaucht(dot)sensenmann(dot)at>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: INNER JOINS in sql-select.html |
Date: | 2003-11-04 01:35:11 |
Message-ID: | p05210608bbccb29c0608@[137.78.212.225] |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
At 7:38 PM -0500 11/3/03, Tom Lane wrote:
>"Henry B. Hotz" <hotz(at)jpl(dot)nasa(dot)gov> writes:
>> You can imply the issue without obfuscating things. How about:
>
>> A CROSS JOIN or INNER JOIN is a simple Cartesian product, the same
>> as you get from listing the two items at the top level of FROM.
>> CROSS JOIN yields the same results as INNER JOIN ON (TRUE), that is,
>> no rows are removed by qualification.
>
>Okay, but that doesn't do the trick --- it implies that CROSS JOIN isn't
>equivalent to INNER JOIN ON (TRUE), when in fact they are equivalent,
>both as to result and performance characteristics. The issue at hand is
>that an explicit "a JOIN b" may not be equivalent to "FROM a, b".
>
>I reworded the passage as
>
> CROSS JOIN and INNER JOIN
> produce a simple Cartesian product, the same result as you get from
> listing the two items at the top level of FROM,
> but restricted by the join condition (if any).
> CROSS JOIN is equivalent to INNER JOIN ON
> (TRUE), that is, no rows are removed by qualification.
>
>does that help?
'sarright. I was just wordsmithing without worrying about the meaning.
--
The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
Henry(dot)B(dot)Hotz(at)jpl(dot)nasa(dot)gov, or hbhotz(at)oxy(dot)edu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-04 23:33:09 | <comment> seems to be broken |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-04 00:38:21 | Re: INNER JOINS in sql-select.html |