On Oct 5, Tom Lane mentioned:
> However, I can't see anything in the SQL92 spec that requires you to
> use HAVING intelligently, so maybe this error should be downgraded to
> a notice? "HAVING with no aggregates would be faster as a WHERE"
> (but we'll do it anyway to satisfy pedants...)
Oh please God, NO! The next thing they want is SELECT FROM HAVING to
replace WHERE. That is merely the reverse case of what you so humbly
suggested. HAVING doesn't stand after GROUP BY for no reason, AFAIC.
Of course personally, I would love to kill SQL altogether and invent
something better, but not by the end of this day . . .
Peter
--
Peter Eisentraut - peter_e@gmx.net
http://yi.org/peter-e/