From: Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net>
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: DELETE using an outer join
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:17:27 +0200
Message-ID: <jub46t$fl1$1@dough.gmane.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <21289.1342709554@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <ju8veb$dkn$1@dough.gmane.org>
<21289.1342709554@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Tom Lane, 19.07.2012 16:52:
> If you're using a reasonably recent version of PG, replacing the NOT IN
> by a NOT EXISTS test should also help.
Thanks. I wasn't aware of that (and the NOT EXISTS does indeed produce the same plan as the OUTER JOIN solution)
>> Now I was wondering if a DELETE statement could be rewritten with the same "strategy":
>
> Not at the moment. There have been discussions of allowing the same
> table name to be respecified in USING, but there are complications.
Thanks as well. It's not a big deal for me. I was just curious if I missed something.
Regards
Thomas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: spam_eater@gmx.net
Subject: Re: DELETE using an outer join
In-Reply-To: <jub46t$fl1$1@dough.gmane.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox