From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>
To: Atomic_Sheep <atomic.sheep@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Cross-Product JOIN?
Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 06:52:14 +0200
Message-ID: <680324ce9104e3d8e9d93b040c152b8bd47b361e.camel@cybertec.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2053109544.160895.1684955437950@office.mailbox.org>
References: <CAL3CXNMes1r4s78QnMAekj9W1nchGH7dbq86wyEFB2gxqQrJ-g@mail.gmail.com>
<1667253069.131800.1684935988763@office.mailbox.org>
<2053109544.160895.1684955437950@office.mailbox.org>
On Wed, 2023-05-24 at 21:10 +0200, Erik Wienhold wrote:
> > On 24/05/2023 15:46 CEST Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name> wrote:
> >
> > Personally, I think it should read cartesian product because cross product is
> > an overloaded term and cartesian product is used more often in the documentation
> > overall.
> >
> > But the same page [0] also uses cross product when talking about grouping sets.
> >
> > [0] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/queries-table-expressions.html
>
> Here's a patch that fixes those two places.
+1
"Cross product" seems to be a misbegotten hybrid of "cross join" and
"Cartesian product".
Since we are talking about Cartesian products: is the term "Cartesian join"
used anywhere?
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: laurenz.albe@cybertec.at, ewie@ewie.name, atomic.sheep@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Cross-Product JOIN?
In-Reply-To: <680324ce9104e3d8e9d93b040c152b8bd47b361e.camel@cybertec.at>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox