Re: Evaluation of secondary sort key.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Jesper Krogh <jesper(at)krogh(dot)cc>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Evaluation of secondary sort key.
Date: 2011-04-18 18:59:32
Message-ID: 12951.1303153172@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> A lot of SQL queries end up being written with GROUP BY primary_key,
> other_column, other_column, other_column just to get those other
> columns to be queryable. If we implemented the SQL standard
> "dependent" columns feature this would be unnecessary but we don't

We do as of 9.1 ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2011-04-18 19:17:19 Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers
Previous Message Greg Stark 2011-04-18 18:47:03 Re: Evaluation of secondary sort key.