| From: | Jose Soares <jose(at)sferacarta(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] having and union in v7beta |
| Date: | 2000-02-29 08:07:11 |
| Message-ID: | 38BB7E2F.C481BBC3@sferacarta.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> 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
--
Jose' Soares
Bologna, Italy Jose(at)sferacarta(dot)com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| having1.err | text/plain | 1.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jose Soares | 2000-02-29 08:34:59 | Re: [HACKERS] having and union in v7beta |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-02-29 07:06:29 | RE: [HACKERS] Re: ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN |