Peter Kovacs wrote: > I just wanted to give my cheers for DISTINCT ON. It is a great > feature, I've just found a really good use for it. I am just wondering > why it didn't make it into the standards. > > On a slightly unrelated note, I had the opportunity to work with EQUEL > for a short period of time some 15 years ago before I started getting > famililar with SQL. I clearly remember the disappointment/surprise I > felt as I was struggling to translate some of the constructs I used > with EQUEL into SQL. At that time, I thought that (the by then > defunct) EQUEL was much more > expressive/intuitive/flexible/easier-to-use than SQL. I've been > wondering ever since why the worse so often gets the upper-hand over > the better. (I am obviously having a hard time "growing-up" :-) )
As a former EQUEL user myself I had the same reaction to SQL. I think EQUEL and SQL both have strengths, but I think SQL subqueries and the cleaner handling of group aggregates makes SQL more useful in a variety of ways. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
