"Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Nope; Gaetano's right, you cannot assume that. It's entirely possible
>> for the planner to choose different plans depending on the OFFSET.
>> (Maybe not very likely, with such small offsets, but could happen.)
> Interesting. I realized that t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Nope; Gaetano's right, you cannot assume that. It's entirely possible
> for the planner to choose different plans depending on the OFFSET.
> (Maybe not very likely, with such small offsets, but could happen.)
Interesting. I realized that there
On 8/19/2004 12:52 PM, Oliver Elphick wrote:
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 17:21, Josh Berkus wrote:
Jan,
> Because the value in b.y is redundant. b.x->a.x->a.y is exactly the same
> value and he even wants to ensure this with the constraint.
And in the absence of that constraint, what ensures that b.y =
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 17:21, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Jan,
>
> > Because the value in b.y is redundant. b.x->a.x->a.y is exactly the same
> > value and he even wants to ensure this with the constraint.
>
> And in the absence of that constraint, what ensures that b.y = a.y, exactly?
In the absence
Jan,
> Because the value in b.y is redundant. b.x->a.x->a.y is exactly the same
> value and he even wants to ensure this with the constraint.
And in the absence of that constraint, what ensures that b.y = a.y, exactly?
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---
