From: | Richard Poole <richard(dot)poole(at)vi(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: Use of the LIMIT clause ? |
Date: | 2001-03-13 15:07:52 |
Message-ID: | 20010313150752.A13549@office.vi.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-sql |
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 09:21:58PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Spy <spy(at)joystick(dot)fr> writes:
> > Tom Lane a écrit :
> >> Is that actually how MySQL interprets two parameters? We treat them
> >> as count and offset respectively, which definition I thought was the
> >> same as MySQL's.
>
> > But MySQL's syntax is different, as found on
> > http://www.mysql.com/doc/S/E/SELECT.html :
> > "SELECT [STRAIGHT_JOIN] [SQL_SMALL_RESULT] [SQL_BIG_RESULT]
> > [SQL_BUFFER_RESULT]
> > [...]
> > [LIMIT [offset,] rows]"
>
> That's annoying; looks like we do it backwards from MySQL. Can anyone
> confirm that this is how MySQL behaves (maybe it's a typo on this
> documentation page)?
Yes, it does behave as documented.
> Should we consider changing ours if it is different?
I don't know that it's worth it... it seems to inconvenience some
people either way. I may soon be moving a moderately complex system
from MySQL to Postgres and it wouldn't be the end of my world if
I had to reverse all the LIMITs.
Richard
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christian Marschalek | 2001-03-13 17:28:53 | RE: Compiling error... plz hlp |
Previous Message | jairo | 2001-03-13 11:14:09 | Re: Cobol |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Patrik Kudo | 2001-03-13 15:45:45 | Re: != and <> operators |
Previous Message | david morgan | 2001-03-13 15:04:20 | Re: error joining 2 views containing GROUP BYs |