From: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: OUTER joins |
Date: | 1999-03-09 02:46:40 |
Message-ID: | 36E48B90.F3E902B7@alumni.caltech.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Hadn't thought about it, other than figuring that implementing the
> > equi-join first was a good start. There is a class of outer join
> > syntax (the USING clause) which is implicitly an equi-join...
> Not that easy. You don't automatically get a mergejoin from an
> equijoin. I will have to force outer's to be either mergejoins, or
> inners of non-merge joins. Can you add code to non-merge joins in the
> executor to throw out a null row if it does not find an inner match
> for the outer row, and I will handle the optimizer so it doesn't throw
> a non-conforming plan to the executor.
So far I don't have enough info in the parser to get the
planner/optimizer going. Should we work from the front to the back, or
should I go ahead and look at the non-merge joins? It's painfully
obvious that I don't know anything about the middle parts of this to
proceed without lots more research.
- Tom
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1999-03-09 03:05:11 | Re: [HACKERS] 6.4.3 release |
Previous Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1999-03-09 02:34:09 | Re: [HACKERS] CVS access? |