Re: [HACKERS] SELECT ... LIMIT (trial implementation)
От | Terry Mackintosh |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] SELECT ... LIMIT (trial implementation) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.3.95.981018155322.29282B-100000@terry1.acun.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] SELECT ... LIMIT (trial implementation) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] SELECT ... LIMIT (trial implementation)
CVS ... |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 18 Oct 1998, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > What if someone wants the rows from 500 to the end. Should we allow > > the syntax to be: > > SELECT ... [LIMIT count] [OFFSET offset] > > LIMIT and OFFSET are independent. > > I like that syntax the best, but remember we are not inventing in > a green field here. Isn't this a feature that already exists in > other DBMs? We should probably copy their syntax, unless it's > truly spectacularly awful... > > regards, tom lane None that I have used (VFP, M$ SQL Server) that had 'LIMIT', had 'OFFSET'. So it would seem that the very idea of OFFSET is to break with what others are doing. I too like the above syntax. Why mimic, when you can do better? Go for it! Just my vote, have a great day Terry Mackintosh <terry@terrym.com> http://www.terrym.com sysadmin/owner Please! No MIME encoded or HTML mail, unless needed. Proudly powered by R H Linux 4.2, Apache 1.3, PHP 3, PostgreSQL 6.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Success Is A Choice ... book by Rick Patino, get it, read it!
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: