> > I can't get excited about changing this from the standpoint of
> > functionality, because AFAICS there is no added functionality.
> > But if we're looking bad on a recognized benchmark maybe we
> > should do something about it.
>
> We are looking bad on a benchmark designed to show MySQL in the best
> possible light, and to show other DBs at their worst. The maintainers
> of that benchmark have no interest in changing that emphasis (e.g. we
> are still reported as not supporting HAVING, even though we have
> demonstrated to them that we do; this is the same pattern we have seen
> earlier).
>
> The last time I looked at it, there were ~30% factual errors in the
> reported results for Postgres; no telling what errors are there for
> other products. imho it is a waste of time to address a bogus
> benchmark, unless someone wants to take it up as a hobby. I'm a bit
> busy right now ;)
On a separate note, should we support HAVING without any aggregates?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
