hubert depesz lubaczewski writes:
> There are two simple queries: ...
> They differ only in order of queries in union all part.
> The thing is that they return the same result. Why isn't one of them returning
> "2005" for 6th "miesiac"?
With such a small amount of data, you're getting an in-memor
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:56 AM, hubert depesz lubaczewski
wrote:
> before I'll go any further - this is only thought-experiment. I do not
> plan to use such queries in real-life applications. I was just presented
> with a question that I can't answer in any logical way.
>
> There are two simple q
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 03:34:38PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> Hi deepesz,
> You might want to see their EXPLAIN VERBOSE outputs. Having one of them
> (2004 one) lesser number of rows, might be getting picked up as first
> relation being union and thus ends up having it's rows before the second
Hi deepesz,
You might want to see their EXPLAIN VERBOSE outputs. Having one of them
(2004 one) lesser number of rows, might be getting picked up as first
relation being union and thus ends up having it's rows before the second
one. Explain output would make it more clear. Also, try having same numb
Hi,
before I'll go any further - this is only thought-experiment. I do not
plan to use such queries in real-life applications. I was just presented
with a question that I can't answer in any logical way.
There are two simple queries:
#v+
with rok2005 (miesiac,wynik) as (VALUES (1,1),(2,2) ,
