Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [PHP3] Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [PHP3] Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 12470.939162585@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [PHP3] Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] Re: [PHP3] Re: PostgreSQL vs Mysql comparison
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > But can we compare aggs and non-aggs? I see now that our code is fine: No, you're barking up the wrong tree. The issue is whether a HAVING clause that doesn't contain *any* aggregates is legal/reasonable. It can contain non-aggregated references to GROUP BY columns in any case. But without aggregates, there's no semantic difference from putting the same condition in WHERE. I believe that planner.c currently has an implementation assumption that HAVING must have an aggregate (because it hangs the HAVING clause onto the Agg plan node as a qual clause --- if no Agg node, no place to perform the HAVING test). This could be fixed if we felt it was worth doing. I can't get excited about changing this from the standpoint of functionality, because AFAICS there is no added functionality. But if we're looking bad on a recognized benchmark maybe we should do something about it. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: