Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D27502E3C40 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:22:00 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 50320-01 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:21:49 -0400 (AST) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 061E92E3C39 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:22:00 -0400 (AST) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by news.hub.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m07ILwUD011555 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:21:58 -0400 (AST) (envelope-from news@news.hub.org) Received: (from news@localhost) by news.hub.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id m07I43w3006801 for pgsql-sql@postgresql.org; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:04:03 -0400 (AST) (envelope-from news) From: Chris Browne X-Newsgroups: pgsql.sql Subject: Re: Cheers for DISTINCT ON Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 12:51:19 -0500 Organization: cbbrowne Computing Inc Lines: 35 Message-ID: <607iil34o8.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com> References: <20080107161812.GS18581@crankycanuck.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) XEmacs/21.4.21 (linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:BZmzNwxb/vDCPlQe0gG/qc/LSes= To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200801/28 X-Sequence-Number: 29882 ajs@crankycanuck.ca (Andrew Sullivan) writes: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 05:02:27PM +0100, 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. > > Likely because neither Oracle Corp nor IBM nor (at the time, I guess) Sybase > had an implementation they were willing to spend enough time promoting. > >> wondering ever since why the worse so often gets the upper-hand over >> the better. (I am obviously having a hard time "growing-up" :-) ) > > There is a long history in the computing literature on this, but the best > explanation is probably still Richard Gabriel's 'The Rise of "Worse is > Better"': . Note that Gabriel > himself is of two minds about that paper: > . I still think it's worth > reading. Just about everything I've ever written or said turned out to be > wrong in some sense, but it was still usually the result of the best > argument I could make at the time. I have heard that Gabriel has, at different conferences at different times, taken and argued opposite positions on this; he has both argued "Worse is Better" and that "Worse isn't Better." Another view is "Good Enough is Better." http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/good-enough.html -- "cbbrowne","@","cbbrowne.com" http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/advocacy.html "Generally in war the best policy is to take a state intact; to ruin it is inferior to this. To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." -- Sun-Tzu, The Art of War