Re: IN vs EXISTS equivalence

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Kevin Grittner" <Kgrittn(dot)CCAP(dot)Courts(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: IN vs EXISTS equivalence
Date: 2007-10-22 22:04:26
Message-ID: 471CD819.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 4:37 PM, in message
<471CD1BE(dot)EE98(dot)0025(dot)0(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, "Kevin Grittner"
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:

> One more logically equivalent, PostgreSQL-specific form which
> costs out even better was suggested off-list:

Oops. That is not logically equivalent. We want to delete WHERE NOT
EXISTS; the logic of that suggestion is backwards.

Disregard that last post, please.

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-10-23 03:36:00 Re: Feature Freeze date for 8.4
Previous Message Chris Browne 2007-10-22 22:02:36 Re: Feature Freeze date for 8.4