I wrote:
Hence semijoins can be rearranged just as freely as inner joins.
I guess nobody checked my work, because that claim is bogus. Consider
A semijoin (B innerjoin C on (Pbc)) on (Pab)
=? (A semijoin B on (Pab)) innerjoin C on (Pbc)
In the second form the inner join is now
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wrote:
Hence semijoins can be rearranged just as freely as inner joins.
I guess nobody checked my work, because that claim is bogus.
I spent some time reading your email and thinking through the cases,
but I completely
On 11 Feb 2009, at 00:03, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Actually, that makes less sense than the antijoin case. For antijoin
there is a well-defined value for the extended columns, ie null. For
a semijoin the RHS values might come from any of the rows that happen
to join to the current
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
(A semijoin B on (Pab)) antijoin C on (Pbc)
= A semijoin (B antijoin C on (Pbc)) on (Pab)
I think this one is true, and it doesn't seem to be mentioned,
unless I'm missing something. It seems
I wrote:
You've got a name, and you want a list of outstanding warrants for
parties with a matching name.
Correction, if that was the list you wanted, you would use an inner
join, not a semijoin. For purposes of this illustration I guess you
would be looking for a list of parties who have
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 08:12:56PM -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Jonah H. Harris
jonah.har...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wrote (in response to Kevin Grittner's recent issues):
Reflecting on
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:05 AM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
As has been discussed here many, many times, the only kind of person
who should be doing a patent search is a company's IP attorney, which
you are not, and even if you were, under no circumstances would such a
person paste
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 09:36:38AM -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:05 AM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
As has been discussed here many, many times, the only kind of
person who should be doing a patent search is a company's IP
attorney, which you are not,
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:19 AM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
This is a very big deal, as you are exposing every US PostgreSQL
contributor to triple damages for knowing infringement. Are you
saying you're going to pay all that out of your own pocket? Are you
making a legal
David,
* David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 09:36:38AM -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
Secondly, I don't believe there's any restriction of explicitly what
can and cannot be posted on a public Postgres mailing list.
We have plenty of such restrictions. Take the
Hello,
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 09:41:46PM +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Hi,
Le 10 févr. 09 à 21:10, Tom Lane a écrit :
I wrote (in response to Kevin Grittner's recent issues):
Reflecting on this further, I suspect there are also some bugs in the
planner's rules about when semi/antijoins
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 09:36:38AM -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
Secondly, I don't believe there's any restriction of explicitly what
can and cannot be posted on a public Postgres mailing list.
We have plenty of such restrictions. Take the Nazi spammer,
Gianni Ciolli gianni.cio...@2ndquadrant.it writes:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 09:41:46PM +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
I don't know how easy it would be to do, but maybe the Coq formal proof
management system could help us here:
http://coq.inria.fr/
The harder part in using coq might well be
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wrote (in response to Kevin Grittner's recent issues):
Reflecting on this further, I suspect there are also some bugs in
the planner's rules about when semi/antijoins can commute with
other joins;
After doing some math I've concluded this is in fact
I wrote:
A6.
[less coherent version of a question already asked and answered]
Got that part on a reread of the thread. Sorry for asking that after
it had been addressed. No need to answer again.
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
A6. (A antijoin B on (Pab)) leftjoin C on (Pbc)
= A antijoin (B leftjoin C on (Pbc)) on (Pab)
How do you get the first form as a starting point?
Not sure if you can in SQL, but the point of the
I wrote (in response to Kevin Grittner's recent issues):
Reflecting on this further, I suspect there are also some bugs in the
planner's rules about when semi/antijoins can commute with other joins;
After doing some math I've concluded this is in fact the case. Anyone
want to check my work?
Hi,
Le 10 févr. 09 à 21:10, Tom Lane a écrit :
I wrote (in response to Kevin Grittner's recent issues):
Reflecting on this further, I suspect there are also some bugs in the
planner's rules about when semi/antijoins can commute with other
joins;
After doing some math I've concluded this
A6. (A antijoin B on (Pab)) leftjoin C on (Pbc)
= A antijoin (B leftjoin C on (Pbc)) on (Pab)
The second form is in fact equivalent to null-extending the A/B antijoin
--- the actual contents of C cannot affect the result. So we could just
I don't understand why antijoins need to
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I don't understand why antijoins need to null-extend the tuple at all.
Well, we are talking theoretical definition here, not implementation.
But if you need an example where the column values can be referenced:
select * from a left join b on
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I don't understand why antijoins need to null-extend the tuple at all.
Well, we are talking theoretical definition here, not implementation.
But if you need an example where the
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wrote (in response to Kevin Grittner's recent issues):
Reflecting on this further, I suspect there are also some bugs in the
planner's rules about when semi/antijoins can commute with other joins;
After doing some math
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Jonah H. Harris jonah.har...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I wrote (in response to Kevin Grittner's recent issues):
Reflecting on this further, I suspect there are also some bugs in the
planner's rules
Jonah H. Harris jonah.har...@gmail.com writes:
Cripes! I just had an idea and it looks like the buggers beat me to it :(
http://www.google.com/patents?id=4bqBEBAJdq=null+aware+anti-join
I wonder if the USPTO is really clueless enough to accept this?
Claim 1 would give Oracle ownership of
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Jonah H. Harris jonah.har...@gmail.com writes:
Cripes! I just had an idea and it looks like the buggers beat me to it
:(
http://www.google.com/patents?id=4bqBEBAJdq=null+aware+anti-join
I wonder if the USPTO is
25 matches
Mail list logo
