From: Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Cheers for DISTINCT ON
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:52:18 -0500
Organization: cbbrowne Computing Inc
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <603at934ml.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com>
References: <b6e8f2e80801070802n7b04b0e3lbbec1d284bef1f9f@mail.gmail.com>
	<200801071622.m07GMpQ17669@momjian.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) XEmacs/21.4.21 (linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GLdS2D/8aA3GcudntaA5IJl8xIE=
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org

bruce@momjian.us (Bruce Momjian) writes:
> 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.

If EQUEL had continued to evolve, might it not have improved in these
ways?
-- 
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "linuxfinances.info")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/lisp.html
Ubuntu is an ancient African word, meaning "can't configure Debian"