Tom Lane wrote: > > Don Baccus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > What's so hard about writing "IN" rather than "=" ??? > > Even more to the point, if we did adopt such a (crazy IMHO) > interpretation of '=', what makes anyone think that it'd be > any more efficient than IN? > > AFAICT, mlw is hoping that redefining '=' would magically avoid the > performance problems with IN, but my bet is it'd be just the same. > > What we need to do is teach the system how to handle WHERE ... IN ... > as a form of join. Changing semantics of operators isn't necessary > nor helpful. I will defer, of course, to your interpretation of '=', but I still think it (if implemented efficiently) could be cool. However, I hang my head in shame that I didn't see this syntax: select table.* from table, (select function() as field) as result where table.field = result.field; It seems to be pretty efficient, and satisfies the main criteria that I needed, which was a full text search could be used on select with no external programming language. Currently my system can't be used without an external programming language, and this is a huge, if awkward solution. Thanks all. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
