Re: IN vs EXISTS equivalence - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Decibel!
Subject Re: IN vs EXISTS equivalence
Date
Msg-id DD52A3AC-9ED8-47F4-89D8-9D70A8B2DB87@decibel.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: IN vs EXISTS equivalence  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: IN vs EXISTS equivalence  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
Re: IN vs EXISTS equivalence  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Aug 8, 2008, at 3:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> * has no set operations (UNION etc), grouping, set-returning functions
> in the SELECT list, LIMIT, or a few other funny cases


Couldn't union/union all be treated as

EXISTS(a)
OR EXISTS(b)
...

Or am I missing some detail with NULLS?

Personally, I'd rather write it as separate EXISTS clauses rather  
than using UNION, but perhaps others have a different preference...
-- 
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect  decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal: UTF8 to_ascii function
Next
From: Decibel!
Date:
Subject: Re: Visibility Groups