Tom Lane, 19.07.2012 16:52:
If you're using a reasonably recent version of PG, replacing the NOT IN
by a NOT EXISTS test should also help.
Thanks. I wasn't aware of that (and the NOT EXISTS does indeed produce the same
plan as the OUTER JOIN solution)
Now I was wondering if a DELETE
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Now I was wondering if a DELETE statement could be rewritten with the same
strategy:
Not at the moment. There have been discussions of allowing the same
table name to be respecified in USING, but there are complications.
Sergey Konoplev, 20.07.2012 10:21:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Now I was wondering if a DELETE statement could be rewritten with the same
strategy:
Not at the moment. There have been discussions of allowing the same
table name to be respecified in
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Thomas Kellerer spam_ea...@gmx.net wrote:
Now I was wondering if a DELETE statement could be rewritten with the
same strategy:
Not at the moment. There have been discussions of allowing the same
table name to be respecified in USING, but there are
Sergey Konoplev gray...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Now I was wondering if a DELETE statement could be rewritten with the same
strategy:
Not at the moment. There have been discussions of allowing the same
table name to be
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
DELETE FROM some_table USING some_table AS s
WHERE
some_table.col1 = s.col1 AND
some_table.col2 = s.col2 AND
some_table.id s.id;
No, that's a self-join, which isn't what the OP wanted. You can make it
work if
