To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
From: Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net>
Subject: Re: DELETE using an outer join
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:17:27 +0200
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <jub46t$fl1$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <ju8veb$dkn$1@dough.gmane.org> <21289.1342709554@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
In-Reply-To: <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