Re: Re: Use of the LIMIT clause ? - Mailing list pgsql-sql

From Richard Poole
Subject Re: Re: Use of the LIMIT clause ?
Date
Msg-id 20010313150752.A13549@office.vi.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Use of the LIMIT clause ?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Re: Use of the LIMIT clause ?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: Re: Use of the LIMIT clause ?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-sql
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 09:21:58PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Spy <spy@joystick.fr> writes:
> > Tom Lane a écrit :
> >> Is that actually how MySQL interprets two parameters?  We treat them
> >> as count and offset respectively, which definition I thought was the
> >> same as MySQL's.
> 
> > But MySQL's syntax is different, as found on
> > http://www.mysql.com/doc/S/E/SELECT.html : 
> > "SELECT [STRAIGHT_JOIN] [SQL_SMALL_RESULT] [SQL_BIG_RESULT]
> > [SQL_BUFFER_RESULT]
> > [...]   
> >         [LIMIT [offset,] rows]"
> 
> That's annoying; looks like we do it backwards from MySQL.  Can anyone
> confirm that this is how MySQL behaves (maybe it's a typo on this
> documentation page)?

Yes, it does behave as documented.

> Should we consider changing ours if it is different?

I don't know that it's worth it... it seems to inconvenience some
people either way. I may soon be moving a moderately complex system
from MySQL to Postgres and it wouldn't be the end of my world if
I had to reverse all the LIMITs.

Richard


pgsql-sql by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: != and <> operators
Next
From: Patrik Kudo
Date:
Subject: Re: != and <> operators