Tom,
> The list of explicit JOINs as you have here is a good way to proceed
> *if* you write the JOINs in an appropriate order for implementation.
> I believe the problem with Roman's original query was that he listed
> the JOINs in a bad order. Unfortunately I didn't keep a copy of that
> message, and the list archives seem to be a day or more behind...
> but at least for these WHERE conditions, it looks like the best bet
> would to join m to b (I'm assuming m.merchid is unique), then to t,
> then to d, then add on the others.
I realize that I've contributed nothing other than bug reports to the
parser design. But shouldn't Postgres, given a free hand, figure out
the above automatically? I'd be embarassed if MS could one-up us in
parser planning anywhere, theirs sucks on sub-selects ....
-Josh Berkus