Re: Cartesian product bug?
От | Greg Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Cartesian product bug? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 87oevt6w49.fsf@stark.dyndns.tv обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Cartesian product bug? ("scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Cartesian product bug?
|
Список | pgsql-general |
"scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com> writes: > On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > > > (Personally I think NATURAL JOIN is an evil, bug-prone construct, > > precisely because coincidental matches of column names will mess up your > > results.) > > Me too. When I first saw it, I figured it would "naturally join" the two > tables on their fk/pk relation if there was one. That seems natural. > Joining on two fields that just happen to have the same name is unnatural > to me. Well 99% of the time I impose on myself a constraint to only use the same name iff they refer to the same attribute. So if they have the same name then they really ought to be a reasonable join clause. However the 1% are things like "date_created, date_updated" or even flags like "active", "deleted" etc. Which are more than enough to make it utterly useless. Too bad really, it would be a handy thing for ad-hoc queries typed at psql. It would still seem too fragile for production queries though. -- greg
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: