Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] having and union in v7beta

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: 2000-02-28 15:51:38
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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: 7
Description: text/plain (971 bytes)

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2000-02-28 15:52:03
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] interesting observatation regarding views and V7.0
Previous:From: Oleg BroytmannDate: 2000-02-28 15:40:09
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Locale support broken in latest snapshots

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group