On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 18:10 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 17:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I have a complex query where making a small change to the SQL increases
> > > run-time by > 1000 times.
> >
> > > The first SQL statement is
On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 17:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have a complex query where making a small change to the SQL increases
> > run-time by > 1000 times.
>
> > The first SQL statement is of the form
>
> > A JOIN B ON (a.id = b.id) LEFT JOIN C ON (a.id
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 11:45 +0100, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2008, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > I do recognise that we would *not* be able to deduce this form of SQL
> >
> > A JOIN B ON (a.id = c.id) LEFT JOIN C ON (b.id = c.id)
>
> Surely that would not be valid SQL?
You are right, but
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Simon Riggs wrote:
I do recognise that we would *not* be able to deduce this form of SQL
A JOIN B ON (a.id = c.id) LEFT JOIN C ON (b.id = c.id)
Surely that would not be valid SQL?
Matthew
--
Psychotics are consistently inconsistent. The essence of sanity is to
be inconsi
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a complex query where making a small change to the SQL increases
> run-time by > 1000 times.
> The first SQL statement is of the form
> A JOIN B ON (a.id = b.id) LEFT JOIN C ON (a.id = c.id)
> and the second is like this
> A JOIN B ON (a.id = b.
I have a complex query where making a small change to the SQL increases
run-time by > 1000 times.
The first SQL statement is of the form
A JOIN B ON (a.id = b.id) LEFT JOIN C ON (a.id = c.id)
and the second is like this
A JOIN B ON (a.id = b.id) LEFT JOIN C ON (b.id = c.id)
the only differen
