On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 02:32:56PM -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> The operators and sequencing involving actual records seems to be
> different from that for row value constructors, and it appears to
> be for good reason -- so that indexing will work correctly.
>
> My questions:
>
> Did I miss so
This is almost but not quite entirely unlike the NULL row issues
Bruce has been raising lately. It is related to some
infrastructure work I've been doing to fix some edge conditions I
discovered (based on reviewing issues raised by Noah) with REFRESH
MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY and also with wo
Jeremy Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just think it is quite unexpected that the operator < is defined in some
> places and not in others.
Row-wise comparison isn't an operator, it's a syntactic construct.
Consider
(now(), 'foo', 42) < (SELECT timestampcol, textcol, intcol FROM sometable W
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeremy Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > select rowval from myrowtypetable ORDER BY ROW((rowval).*) USING <;
> > ERROR: operator does not exist: record < record
>
> This isn't required by the spec, and it's not implemented. I don't
> see that it'd give
Jeremy Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> select rowval from myrowtypetable ORDER BY ROW((rowval).*) USING <;
> ERROR: operator does not exist: record < record
This isn't required by the spec, and it's not implemented. I don't
see that it'd give any new functionality anyway, since you can alway
On 10/20/06, Jeremy Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I noticed something odd when trying to use the row-wise comparison
mentioned in the release notes for 8.2 and in the docs
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/functions-comparisons.html#ROW-WISE-COMPARISON
This sets up a suitable te
I noticed something odd when trying to use the row-wise comparison
mentioned in the release notes for 8.2 and in the docs
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/functions-comparisons.html#ROW-WISE-COMPARISON
This sets up a suitable test:
create type myrowtype AS (a integer, b integer);
c
Added to TODO:
* Make row-wise comparisons work per SQL spec
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2004-07/msg00218.php
>
> > Still
"Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2004-07/msg00218.php
> Still, I think the current behavior is wrong...and is exactly the kind
> of trick question that a sql compliance benchmark might ask.
It undoubtedly is wrong. But it has been wr
> Yes, I found the following thread started by you in the
> pgsql-performance list:
>
> Subject: [PERFORM] best way to fetch next/prev record based on index
> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 06:18:43 -0700
>
> > there were some concerns about backwards compatibility.
>
> IMO 8.0 is a good chance to fix i
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I remember the thread but didn't see a TODO in there at the time.
* Make row-wise comparisons work per SQL spec
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to in
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > > Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > I guess this means that PostgreSQL does not fully support SQL's
> > > > row-wise comparison. We need to add this to the TODO list?
> > >
> > > I thought it was there already ... certainly this has been discussed
> > > befor
> > Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I guess this means that PostgreSQL does not fully support SQL's
> > > row-wise comparison. We need to add this to the TODO list?
> >
> > I thought it was there already ... certainly this has been discussed
> > before ...
>
> This was discussed (i
> Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I guess this means that PostgreSQL does not fully support SQL's
> > row-wise comparison. We need to add this to the TODO list?
>
> I thought it was there already ... certainly this has been discussed
> before ...
This was discussed (including a possi
Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I guess this means that PostgreSQL does not fully support SQL's
> row-wise comparison. We need to add this to the TODO list?
I thought it was there already ... certainly this has been discussed
before ...
regards, tom lane
--
Following result seems strange since it is not what the standard
expects:
test=# select (1,1) > (0,10);
?column?
--
f
(1 row)
On the other hand I see following in the doc:
-
9.17.5. Row-wise Comparison
(expression [, expression ...]) operator (
16 matches
Mail list logo
