On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 07:46 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Care to share the paper in general? It might be beneficial for all of us.
I'll ask the author, but don't expect an immediate response.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 11:16 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I've just read a paper that says PostgreSQL doesn't do this.
>
> What does he mean by that exactly, and which PG version is he looking
> at? As Greg notes, we do know how to push down non-aggregated
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've just read a paper that says PostgreSQL doesn't do this.
What does he mean by that exactly, and which PG version is he looking
at? As Greg notes, we do know how to push down non-aggregated
conditions, but I'm not sure that's what he's thinking of.
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 15:22 +, Gregory Stark wrote:
>> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I've just read a paper that says PostgreSQL doesn't do this. My reading
>>> of the code is that we *do* evaluate the HAVING clause prior to
>>> calculating the aggregate
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 15:22 +, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I've just read a paper that says PostgreSQL doesn't do this. My reading
> > of the code is that we *do* evaluate the HAVING clause prior to
> > calculating the aggregates for it. I thought I'
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've just read a paper that says PostgreSQL doesn't do this. My reading
> of the code is that we *do* evaluate the HAVING clause prior to
> calculating the aggregates for it. I thought I'd check to resolve the
> confusion.
>
> - - -
>
> If not, it seem
