Tom Lane wrote: > =?UTF-8?Q?J=c3=bcrgen_Purtz?= <juer...@purtz.de> writes:
> > a) In my opinion this wording is easier to understand because it avoids > > the negation via "not less". > > That's a fair point. > > The other difference is least/greatest versus smallest/largest. I'm not > sure if using least/greatest would help the people who misunderstand > "smallest" as "closest to zero". They might; but being less-common words, > they might also confuse people whose native language isn't English. > Anyone have an opinion about which to use? As a non-native, the use of "least/greatest" makes it more explicit that it refers to arithmetic inequality, whereas "smallest" sounds like it may be related to absolute value comparisons. It's true that least/greatest are less common words, but that makes it more likely that they would be looked up in a dictionary, whereas with smallest/largest people might stick to intuitive knowledge and get them wrong. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
