Re: BUG #2739: INTERSECT ALL not working
От | Mason Hale |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #2739: INTERSECT ALL not working |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8bca3aa10611061157p2f523447o8a45e8bf7304d25a@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #2739: INTERSECT ALL not working (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Tom - Many thanks for the quick reply. I feel honored to receive email from you after seeing your name so many times in my web searches on Postgres topics. That's not how I understood INTERSECT ALL to work. But it's the clear the spec is right and my understanding is wrong. This is not a bug. Unfortunately the INTERSECT ALL as spec'd and implemented doesn't quite give me what I need. So back to the drawing board for me... best regards, Mason On 11/6/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > "Mason Hale" <masonhale@gmail.com> writes: > > The query below should return 10 rows, > > Not by my reading of the spec. SQL92 7.10 saith: > > b) If a set operator is specified, then the result of applying > the set operator is a table containing the following rows: > > i) Let R be a row that is a duplicate of some row in T1 or > of > some row in T2 or both. Let m be the number of duplicates > of R in T1 and let n be the number of duplicates of R in > T2, where m >= 0 and n >= 0. > > ... > > iii) If ALL is specified, then > > ... > > > 3) If INTERSECT is specified, then the number of > duplicates > of R that T contains is the minimum of m and n. > > You have m = 1, n = 2 for each distinct row at the INTERSECT step, > ergo you get one copy out. > > regards, tom lane >
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: