Message-ID: <680324ce9104e3d8e9d93b040c152b8bd47b361e.camel@cybertec.at>
Subject: Re: Cross-Product JOIN?
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name>, Atomic_Sheep <atomic.sheep@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Date: Thu, 25 May 2023 06:52:14 +0200
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4 (3.46.4-1.fc37) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/680324ce9104e3d8e9d93b040c152b8bd47b361e.camel%40cybertec.at>
Precedence: bulk

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:
> >=20
> > Personally, I think it should read cartesian product because cross prod=
uct is
> > an overloaded term and cartesian product is used more often in the docu=
mentation
> > overall.
> >=20
> > But the same page [0] also uses cross product when talking about groupi=
ng sets.
> >=20
> > [0] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/15/queries-table-expressions.html
>=20
> 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