Request a Demo
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Optimization rules for semi and anti joins - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jonah H. Harris
Subject Re: Optimization rules for semi and anti joins
Date
Msg-id [email protected]
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Optimization rules for semi and anti joins  (Tom Lane <[email protected]>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
"Jonah H. Harris" <[email protected]> writes:
> Cripes!  I just had an idea and it looks like the buggers beat me to it :(
> http://www.google.com/patents?id=4bqBAAAAEBAJ&dq=null+aware+anti-join

I wonder if the USPTO is really clueless enough to accept this?
Claim 1 would give Oracle ownership of the definition of NOT IN,
and few of the other claims seem exactly non-obvious either.

Yeah, I just looked up semi and anti-join optimization patents and Oracle/IBM have a ton.  What an obvious exploitation of math for business gain.  I doubt they'd be enforceable.  I wish they'd just do away with software patents altogether :(

--
Jonah H. Harris, Senior DBA
myYearbook.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Optimization rules for semi and anti joins
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: GIN fast insert