Re: INNER JOINS in sql-select.html
От | Henry B. Hotz |
---|---|
Тема | Re: INNER JOINS in sql-select.html |
Дата | |
Msg-id | p05210602bbcc8fb0d68c@[137.78.212.225] обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: INNER JOINS in sql-select.html (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: INNER JOINS in sql-select.html
|
Список | pgsql-docs |
At 5:56 PM -0500 10/30/03, Tom Lane wrote: >Stefan Weiss <spaceman-4b9f8-20030703@ausgehaucht.sensenmann.at> writes: >> From <doc/html/sql-select.html>: > > | A CROSS JOIN or INNER JOIN is a simple Cartesian product, the same >> | as you get from listing the two items at the top level of FROM. CROSS >> | JOIN is equivalent to INNER JOIN ON (TRUE), that is, no rows are >> | removed by qualification. > >> I thought that by using the second form, you would be able to do >> 'explicit' joins, effectivly telling the planner in which order to >> join multiple tables (in case you have to join 10+ tables)? > >They are semantically equivalent, but not necessarily the same from a >performance point of view. The potential performance issues are covered >elsewhere; I think it would just obfuscate matters to try to include >that topic here. You can imply the issue without obfuscating things. How about: >A CROSS JOIN or INNER JOIN is a simple Cartesian product, the same >as you get from listing the two items at the top level of FROM. >CROSS JOIN yields the same results as INNER JOIN ON (TRUE), that is, >no rows are removed by qualification. -- The opinions expressed in this message are mine, not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government. Henry.B.Hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu
В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления: