On 2008-02-28 09:13, Tom Lane wrote:
A rule of thumb is that ORDER BY in a view is bad design, IMHO.
regards, tom lane
I was surprised to find out that apparently it's also a PostgreSQL
extension; standard SQL apparently disallows ORDER BY in VIEWs:
http://en.wik
On 2008-02-23 08:49, Dean Gibson (DB Administrator) wrote:
Why 10,000 views??? What's wrong with the ONE view above? You DON'T
want to be defining VIEWs based on actual tables VALUES; leave that
to the SELECT. For that matter, what's wrong with the final SELECT I
listed (b
On 2008-02-23 08:21, Kynn Jones wrote:
...
3. Why not write:
CREATE VIEW txt AS
SELECT a1.word AS word1, a1.type AS type1, a2.word AS word2,
a2.type AS type2
FROM T a1 [LEFT] JOIN T a2 USING( zipk ); -- Use "LEFT" if
appropriate
SELECT word1, word1
FROM
On 2008-02-23 07:08, Dean Gibson (DB Administrator) wrote:
...
SELECT word1, word1
FROM S JOIN txt ON word = word1
WHERE type1 = AND type2 = ;
...
Oops that should be:
SELECT word1, word2
FROM S JOIN txt ON word = word1
WHERE type1 = AND type2 = ;
--
Mail to my list address MUST
On 2008-02-23 05:59, Kynn Jones wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Dean Gibson (DB Administrator)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
...
Since you have experience working with views, let me ask you this.
The converse strategy to the one I describe
On 2008-02-22 12:49, Kynn Jones wrote:
Of course, I expect that using views V and V... would
result in a loss in performance relative to a version that used bona
fide tables T and T. My question is, how can I minimize
this performance loss?
That used to be my thoughts too, but I have found o
On 2008-02-12 13:35, Pallav Kalva wrote:
Hi,
...
Table Definitions
\d listing.listingstatus
Table "listing.listingstatus"
Column |Type
| Modifiers
-+-
