From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Message-Id: <200801071622.m07GMpQ17669@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: Cheers for DISTINCT ON
In-Reply-To: <b6e8f2e80801070802n7b04b0e3lbbec1d284bef1f9f@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Kovacs <maxottovonstirlitz@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 11:22:51 -0500 (EST)
CC: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Peter Kovacs wrote:
> I just wanted to give my cheers for DISTINCT ON. It is a great
> feature, I've just found a really good use for it. I am just wondering
> why it didn't make it into the standards.
> 
> On a slightly unrelated note, I had the opportunity to work with EQUEL
> for a short period of time some 15 years ago before I started getting
> famililar with SQL. I clearly remember the disappointment/surprise I
> felt as I was struggling to translate some of the constructs I used
> with EQUEL into SQL. At that time, I thought that (the by then
> defunct) EQUEL was much more
> expressive/intuitive/flexible/easier-to-use than SQL. I've been
> wondering ever since why the worse so often gets the upper-hand over
> the better. (I am obviously having a hard time "growing-up" :-) )

As a former EQUEL user myself I had the same reaction to SQL.  I think
EQUEL and SQL both have strengths, but I think SQL subqueries and the
cleaner handling of group aggregates makes SQL more useful in a variety
of ways.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +