| From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Matteo Beccati <php(at)beccati(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net |
| Subject: | Re: MERGE vs REPLACE |
| Date: | 2005-11-13 17:27:45 |
| Message-ID: | 200511131227.45508.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sunday 13 November 2005 10:01, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 11/13/05, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> wrote:
> > On Saturday 12 November 2005 04:06, Matteo Beccati wrote:
> > > | 1 | 1 | NULL |
> >
> > Wow, that seems ugly.... maybe there's a reason for it, but I'm not sure
> > we could deviate from my$ql's behavior on this even if we wanted... they
> > are the "standard" here.
>
> I don't think that's ugly, I think that's exactly working as
> advertised. Replace behaves exactly like deleting the record with the
> matching primary key and inserting the provided input. ... not merging
> together old data with new.
I disagree in that REPLACE is advertised as a solution for the INSERT else
UPDATE problem, but has a different behavior than a true INSERT else UPDATE
would produce. Maybe that's a problem with the implementation, or maybe
it's a problem in the advertisment, but there is certainly a discrepency
there.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-13 17:52:51 | Re: MERGE vs REPLACE |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2005-11-13 16:58:47 | REPLACE implementation (was: Re: MERGE vs REPLACE) |