From oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Mon Sep 20 12:17:17 2004 Return-Path: Received: from air189.startdedicated.com (root@localhost) by orafaq.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8KHHHf30828 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:17:17 -0500 X-ClientAddr: 206.53.239.180 Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180]) by air189.startdedicated.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8KHHGI30819 for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:17:16 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 21F5872CE65; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:21:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 28228-20; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:21:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 879EB72C048; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:21:58 -0500 (EST) X-pair-Authenticated: 209.197.173.64 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:20:24 -0400 From: Jonathan Gennick Message-ID: <143433468664.20040920132024@gennick.com> To: Lex de Haan Cc: oracle-l@freelists.org Subject: Re[4]: HI In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 9779 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: jonathan@gennick.com Precedence: normal Reply-To: jonathan@gennick.com X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at freelists.org Monday, September 20, 2004, 12:03:30 PM, Lex de Haan (lex.de.haan@naturaljoin.nl) 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@gennick.com 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@gennick.com and include the word "subscribe" in either the subject or body. -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l