"Colin 't Hart" writes:
> Would these be difficult to build in?
Well, you'd have to worry about the ALL cases, as well as how to determine
whether you're actually getting a win (which would probably be rather
tough, really, as the choice would have to be made before we've fired up
any of the plan
On 11 November 2013 15:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Colin 't Hart" writes:
>> On 11 November 2013 14:34, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> No, and it probably won't ever be, since the semantics aren't the same.
>>> EXCEPT/INTERSECT imply duplicate elimination.
>
>> Can't we just use DISTINCT for that?
>
> If you ha
"Colin 't Hart" writes:
> On 11 November 2013 14:34, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, and it probably won't ever be, since the semantics aren't the same.
>> EXCEPT/INTERSECT imply duplicate elimination.
> Can't we just use DISTINCT for that?
If you have to do a DISTINCT it's not clear to me that you're g
On 11 November 2013 14:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Colin 't Hart" writes:
>> I can't get Postgresql to execute a query with EXCEPT (or INTERSECT)
>> as an anti-join (or join).
>
>> Is this even possible?
>
> No, and it probably won't ever be, since the semantics aren't the same.
> EXCEPT/INTERSECT imp
"Colin 't Hart" writes:
> I can't get Postgresql to execute a query with EXCEPT (or INTERSECT)
> as an anti-join (or join).
> Is this even possible?
No, and it probably won't ever be, since the semantics aren't the same.
EXCEPT/INTERSECT imply duplicate elimination.
rega
Hi,
I can't get Postgresql to execute a query with EXCEPT (or INTERSECT)
as an anti-join (or join).
Is this even possible?
If not currently possible, is this something we would like to have?
Cheers,
Colin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes
