Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA5352E020F for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 12:02:46 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 63368-02 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 12:02:34 -0400 (AST) Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com (rv-out-0910.google.com [209.85.198.186]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87AAE2E2F91 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 12:02:30 -0400 (AST) Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so7758261rvb.43 for ; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 08:02:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:x-google-sender-auth; bh=E+4Ygxi9bg/Bb6t8rgvzFJl01f1OgZuNpIAQaz6gqT4=; b=vz2b1yAV85A4AzpDmUjxsxd9nqe3/QTvue+YhCQQ6of6AWVqAs+JcBNFXc6MIOFUd9rd9Gc4dPpKcC3azZA6/QRgtK+qbpjbDghtn8hmAE2MBtYiCo016zA09G8Su1TiePXVbyxUNvgt9i4cQqP5d1QEuBUovYONo4nAirNdbVw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:x-google-sender-auth; b=h/+djAu0KOdxj/FzNKhAk0Kmyi3Gas9qvzbnGBevUqIBsEfCumJUcLMPvys1+TErB2RO/VrQJdsdCOVoxQVxKMkGYNRD4bNM8FCk3u4jrCwo0Cppj3npx8l5zKFMn12QCQybXn2oOTU5BapELlurGSVp1OhPE7LZkhP3jsy4sNY= Received: by 10.141.161.6 with SMTP id n6mr9340503rvo.41.1199721747999; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 08:02:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.195.16 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 08:02:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 17:02:27 +0100 From: "Peter Kovacs" To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Cheers for DISTINCT ON MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Google-Sender-Auth: c69e617d39fc187a X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200801/25 X-Sequence-Number: 29879 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" :-) ) Cheers, Peter