X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02609DCA0B for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:10:18 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 98157-06 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:10:20 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50539DC9A9 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:10:15 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k0G0AJPJ024608; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:10:19 -0500 (EST) To: "Dean Gibson (DB Administrator)" cc: pgsql-sql Subject: Re: What does "merge-joinable join conditions" mean ???? In-reply-to: <43CADF2C.7010100@ultimeth.com> References: <43CAAFA6.6050001@ultimeth.com> <20060115215448.GA30809@winnie.fuhr.org> <43CACC78.7090107@ultimeth.com> <24299.1137367313@sss.pgh.pa.us> <43CADB44.70309@ultimeth.com> <24424.1137368560@sss.pgh.pa.us> <43CADF2C.7010100@ultimeth.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Dean Gibson (DB Administrator)" message dated "Sun, 15 Jan 2006 15:47:56 -0800" Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:10:18 -0500 Message-ID: <24607.1137370218@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.089 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.089] X-Spam-Score: 0.089 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200601/86 X-Sequence-Number: 23875 "Dean Gibson (DB Administrator)" writes: > So, given the fact that the right-hand-table is only about 15 rows, do > you think changing the SELECT back to a LEFT JOIN, and then using a > UNION to get the extra right-hand-rows in, is the best work-around? Yeah, a UNION of left and right joins seems the only very reasonable solution. As long as you're sure there are no duplicate rows you need to keep, it'll work well enough. regards, tom lane