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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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