| From: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Optimization rules for semi and anti joins |
| Date: | 2009-02-11 02:06:28 |
| Message-ID: | 36e682920902101806m14eaa27cr9bd721716194b84c@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Cripes! I just had an idea and it looks like the buggers beat me to it
> :(
> > http://www.google.com/patents?id=4bqBAAAAEBAJ&dq=null+aware+anti-join
>
> I wonder if the USPTO is really clueless enough to accept this?
> Claim 1 would give Oracle ownership of the definition of NOT IN,
> and few of the other claims seem exactly non-obvious either.
Yeah, I just looked up semi and anti-join optimization patents and
Oracle/IBM have a ton. What an obvious exploitation of math for business
gain. I doubt they'd be enforceable. I wish they'd just do away with
software patents altogether :(
--
Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA
myYearbook.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-02-11 02:59:54 | GIN fast insert |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-11 01:41:45 | Re: Optimization rules for semi and anti joins |