Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] having and union in v7beta

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jose Soares <jose(at)sferacarta(dot)com>
Cc: hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] having and union in v7beta
Date: 2000-02-28 15:14:07
Message-ID: 25405.951750847@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Jose Soares <jose(at)sferacarta(dot)com> writes:
> SELECT...HAVING, this last for example doesn't work.

That's a rather strong statement, and in fact a provably false one.
How about a detailed bug report rather than "it doesn't work"?

> SELECT ... UNION (is 3 / 4 times slow)

Can't help you on that without more details, either.  What is the
query exactly, what plan does EXPLAIN show, and what plan did you
get from 6.5?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Don BaccusDate: 2000-02-28 15:16:01
Subject: bug in 7.0
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-02-28 14:48:28
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Locale support broken in latest snapshots

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group