Alex Pilosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm going to CC this to -hackers, maybe someone will shed a light on the
> internals of this.
It's not unintentional. See
http://www.ca.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/7.1/postgres/explicit-joins.html
regards, tom lane
--
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Alex Pilosov wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, Alex Pilosov wrote:
> >
> > Postgres treats join syntax as an explicit definition of what order to
> > joins in. So, I'd guess it sees the first as: do the LOJ and then join
> > that
On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, Alex Pilosov wrote:
>
> > It may be just me, or I am grossly misunderstanding syntax of outer joins,
> > but I see that plans for my queries are different depending on how I place
> > join conditions and sometimes even on order of
On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, Alex Pilosov wrote:
> It may be just me, or I am grossly misunderstanding syntax of outer joins,
> but I see that plans for my queries are different depending on how I place
> join conditions and sometimes even on order of the tables.
>
> Example:
> 1:
> explain select * fro
It may be just me, or I am grossly misunderstanding syntax of outer joins,
but I see that plans for my queries are different depending on how I place
join conditions and sometimes even on order of the tables.
Basically, if I mix ANSI-syntax outer joins (a left outer join b on
a.id=b.id) and "wher
