| From: | Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
| Cc: | chris(at)bitmead(dot)com, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Solution for LIMIT cost estimation |
| Date: | 2000-02-15 03:25:41 |
| Message-ID: | 38A8C735.4E5A1280@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Don Baccus wrote:
>
> At 10:30 AM 2/15/00 +1100, Chris Bitmead wrote:
>
> >It's a logical fact that the existance of "offset", automatically
> >implies
> >ordering, no matter how many SQL textbooks you quote.
>
> Chris, that is your opinion and judging from the responses of other
> folks on this list, it appears to be very much a minority opinion.
>
> Minority of one, as a matter of fact. There has been a parade
> of posts disagreeing with your opinion.
I've heard no-one say that offset is meaningful or in any sense
useful in the absense of order. If it means something please
enlighten us. If not, try reading before posting.
> Why not give up and get on with your life before I get tired of
> being polite? I'm *much* more stubborn than you are, particularly
> when I'm right.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Howard Williams | 2000-02-15 03:55:37 | tuple is too big |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-02-15 03:21:01 | Re: [PATCHES] Re: [HACKERS] Almost there on column aliases |