On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Sven R. Kunze <srku...@mail.de> wrote:
> On 29.09.2016 20:03, Jeff Janes wrote: > > Perhaps some future version of PostgreSQL could do so, but my gut feeling > is that that is not very likely. It would take a lot of work, would risk > breaking or slowing down other things, and is probably too much of a niche > issue to attract a lot of interest. > > > I don't hope so; in business and reports/stats applications there is a lot > of room for this. > > Why do you think that OR-ing several tables is a niche issue? I can at > least name 3 different projects (from 3 different domains) where combining > 3 or more tables with OR is relevant and should be reasonably fast. > Well, I don't recall seeing this issue on this list before (or a few other forums I read) while I see several other issues over and over again. So that is why I think it is a niche issue. Perhaps I've have seen it before and just forgotten, or have not recognized it as being the same issue each time. > This multitude of solution also shows that applications developers might > be overwhelmed by choosing the most appropriate AND most long-lasting one. > Because what I take from the discussion is that a UNION might be > appropriate right now but that could change in the future even for the very > same use-case at hand. > I'm not sure what would cause it to change. Do you mean if you suddenly start selecting a much larger portion of the table? I don't know that the union would be particularly bad in that case, either. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to fix it. I just don't think it is particularly likely to happen soon. I could be wrong (especially if you can write the code to make it happen). Cheers, Jeff
