> Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Isn't it something that takes only a few hours to implement. We can't
> > keep telling people to us EXISTS, especially because most SQL people
> > think correlated queries are slower that non-correlated ones. Can we
> > just on-the-fly rewrite the query to use exists?
>
> I was just about to suggest exactly that. The "IN (subselect)"
> notation seems to be a lot more intuitive --- at least, people
> keep coming up with it --- so why not rewrite it to the EXISTS
> form, if we can handle that more efficiently?
Yes, we have the nice subselect feature. I just hate to see it not
completely finished, performance-wise.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026