Message-ID: <41784809.4070009@openratings.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:36:41 -0400
From: Dmitry Tkach <dmitry@openratings.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-sql <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Trouble with explicit joins
References: <41783BC7.4040207@openratings.com>
 <12900.1098401533@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <12900.1098401533@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tom Lane wrote:

>Dmitry Tkach <dmitry@openratings.com> writes:
>  
>
>>I suppose, this is because the planner takes the order, in which the 
>>tables appear in the explicit joins as some kind of a hint to how I want 
>>that query to be executed,
>>    
>>
>
>It's not a "hint", it's a requirement.  In general, changing the order
>in which outer joins are executed changes the results.
>
>There are some cases in which it is safe to rearrange the order, but
>determining this takes close analysis of the join conditions, and we
>don't (yet) have any code to do that.  So the planner must be
>conservative and take your join order as gospel.
>
>			regards, tom lane
>  
>


Yeah.. that's what I figured.
Are you saying there is no way around it at all? Isn't there a syntax 
supported to write a left join with implicit joins?