Re: [HACKERS] SELECT ... LIMIT (trial implementation) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Terry Mackintosh
Subject Re: [HACKERS] SELECT ... LIMIT (trial implementation)
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.3.95.981018155322.29282B-100000@terry1.acun.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] SELECT ... LIMIT (trial implementation)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] SELECT ... LIMIT (trial implementation)  (jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck))
CVS ...  (Egon Schmid <eschmid@delos.stuttgart.netsurf.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, 18 Oct 1998, Tom Lane wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > What if someone wants the rows from 500 to the end.  Should we allow
> > the syntax to be:
> >          SELECT ... [LIMIT count] [OFFSET offset]
> > LIMIT and OFFSET are independent.
>
> I like that syntax the best, but remember we are not inventing in
> a green field here.  Isn't this a feature that already exists in
> other DBMs?  We should probably copy their syntax, unless it's
> truly spectacularly awful...
>
>             regards, tom lane

None that I have used (VFP, M$ SQL Server) that had 'LIMIT', had 'OFFSET'.
So it would seem that the very idea of OFFSET is to break with what others
are doing.

I too like the above syntax.
Why mimic, when you can do better?  Go for it!

Just my vote, have a great day
Terry Mackintosh <terry@terrym.com>          http://www.terrym.com
sysadmin/owner  Please! No MIME encoded or HTML mail, unless needed.

Proudly powered by R H Linux 4.2, Apache 1.3, PHP 3, PostgreSQL 6.3
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Success Is A Choice ... book by Rick Patino, get it, read it!


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] SELECT ... LIMIT (trial implementation)
Next
From: jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Date:
Subject: PL/pgSQL lex/yacc produced files