Re: Cheers for DISTINCT ON

Peter Kovacs wrote:
> 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" :-) )

As a former EQUEL user myself I had the same reaction to SQL. I think
EQUEL and SQL both have strengths, but I think SQL subqueries and the
cleaner handling of group aggregates makes SQL more useful in a variety
of ways.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +