Re[4]: HI
- From: Jonathan Gennick <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Lex de Haan <lex.de.haan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:20:24 -0400
Monday, September 20, 2004, 12:03:30 PM, Lex de Haan
(lex.de.haan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
LdH> By the way, I think we should get rid of the GROUP BY alltogether -- SQL
has
LdH> much more powerful and elegant constructs to achieve the same results.
think
LdH> about correlated subqueries in the SELECT clause.
That's a fascinating thought, actually. I'll have to sit
down sometime and line up all the uses I can think of for
GROUP BY, and see whether I can solve those problems without
GROUP BY. It'd be interesting to just run some tests of both
approaches, to compare their relative efficiency, even if
only in one implementation (e.g. Oracle).
Best regards,
Jonathan Gennick --- Brighten the corner where you are
http://Gennick.com * 906.387.1698 * mailto:jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxx
Join the Oracle-article list and receive one
article on Oracle technologies per month by
email. To join, visit http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/oracle-article,
or send email to Oracle-article-request@xxxxxxxxxxx and
include the word "subscribe" in either the subject or body.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
