RE: Speaking of New Features
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:54:59 -0500
Oracle's been into the SQL extensions since well before the 92 standard was set in stone, witness DECODE, etc.
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Dan Norris Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:00 PM To: chet.justice_at_gmail.com
Subject: Re: Speaking of New Features
You may be appealing to the wrong people. The SQL 92 standard specifies the INSERT statement syntax (page 388 of http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/sql/sql1992.txt). However, I suppose it's always possible to create "extensions" to those standards too.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:37 PM, chet justice <chet.justice_at_gmail.com> wrote:
Any thoughts on the "new" syntax for INSERT statements below?
INSERT INTO my_table
( id => seq.nexval,
create_date => SYSDATE,
update_date => SYSDATE,
col1 => 'A', col2 => 'SOMETHING', col3 => 'SOMETHING', col4 => 'SOMETHING', col5 => 'SOMETHING', col6 => 'SOMETHING', col7 => 'SOMETHING', col8 => 'SOMETHING', col9 => 'SOMETHING', col10 => 'SOMETHING', col11 => 'SOMETHING', col12 => 'SOMETHING',
col13 => 'SOMETHING',
col14 => 'SOMETHING' );
Thought of one day while trying to clean up (make human readable) someone else's code. I would either get too many values or not enough. After copying the INSERT columns and subsequent VALUES clause into an Excel spreadsheet to compare them side by side, I thought, hey, what about named notation?
Anyway, I created the "Idea" on Oracle Mix here <https://mix.oracle.com/ideas/94278-position-insert-syntax> if you are inclined to, one way or another, to vote.
-- chet justice www.oraclenerd.com -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Thu Sep 10 2009 - 08:54:59 CDT