From: | Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Joseph Shraibman <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net>, "pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: aliases break my query |
Date: | 2000-05-26 13:02:53 |
Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.02A.10005261453420.12244-100000@Falk.DoCS.UU.SE |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
> > playpen=> select ta.a,ta.b,ta.c, (select count (tb.zz) where tb.yy =
> > ta.a) from tablea ta, tableb tb order by tablea.a;
> [ produces 80 rows ]
> > playpen=> select ta.a,ta.b,ta.c, (select count (tb.zz) where tb.yy =
> > ta.a) from tablea ta, tableb tb order by ta.a;
> [ produces 20 rows ]
> > playpen=> select tablea.a,tablea.b,tablea.c, (select count (tableb.zz)
> > where tableb.yy = tablea.a) order by tablea.a;
> [ produces 4 rows ]
Once again, I think that we *really* need to discuss whether implicit
range table entries in SELECT are a good idea. We invariably get a
question like this every week and invariably the answer is "if you give a
table an alias you *must* refer to it by that alias". (I'm sure Tom has
this reply automated by now.) I claim the only thing that buys is
confusion for very little convenience at the other end.
Stop the madness! :)
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nishad PRAKASH | 2000-05-26 14:18:01 | Re: \dS and \df <pattern> crashing psql |
Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2000-05-26 12:20:12 | Re: syslog fix |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ed Loehr | 2000-05-26 13:42:36 | Re: PG/DBI: 'NOTICE: UserAbortTransactionBlock and not in in-progress state' |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-05-26 12:48:06 | Re: A Question |