Re: Speaking of New Features

From: chet justice <chet.justice_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:45:48 -0400
Message-ID: <8311a5b60909101145i39d62af2s16c1675719015b49_at_mail.gmail.com>

True, that would work. It's just ugly though...in my opinion anyway. :)

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Daniel Fink <daniel.fink_at_optimaldba.com>wrote:

> In the absence of actual implementation, comments are your friend. Why not
> use comments to indicate which column you are referencing? Granted it does
> not totally address the situation of specifying a limited number of columns
> or and independent order, but it would help when inserting 100 columns or
> so.
>
> Pre-column
> DEMO_at_dwf10gr2> insert into t2
> 2 values ( /* c1 */ 12,
> 3 /* c2 */ 42
> 4 )
> 5 /
>
> 1 row created.
>
> Post-column
> DEMO_at_dwf10gr2> insert into t2
> 2 values ( 12, -- c1
> 3 42 -- c2
> 4* )
> DEMO_at_dwf10gr2> /
>
> 1 row created.
>
> Regards,
> Daniel Fink
>
> --
> Daniel Fink
>
> OptimalDBA http://www.optimaldba.com
> Oracle Blog http://optimaldba.blogspot.com
>
> Lost Data? http://www.ora600.be/
>
>
>
>
>
> chet justice wrote:
>
> I think I would require the use of the correct column name instead of any
>> type of positional col-n style labeling.
>
>
> Agreed. That was just an example, those are the actual column names.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Powell, Mark D <mark.powell_at_eds.com>wrote:
>
>> Well, the suggested syntax below would make matching up a long column
>> list to the provided values/variables a lot easier and would likely help
>> prevent listing 100 columns to be inserted but only including 99 variables
>> in the values list. I think I would require the use of the correct column
>> name instead of any type of positional col-n style labeling.
>>
>> -- Mark D Powell --
>> Phone (313) 592-5148
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:
>> oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] *On Behalf Of *Jared Still
>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 10, 2009 12:04 PM
>> *To:* chet.justice_at_gmail.com
>> *Cc:* oracle-l
>> *Subject:* Re: Speaking of New Features
>>
>> Very Perlish.
>> I like it. :)
>>
>> Jared Still
>> Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:37 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
>>>
>>> --
>>> chet justice
>>> www.oraclenerd.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> chet justice
> www.oraclenerd.com
>
>
>

-- 
chet justice
www.oraclenerd.com

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

Received on Thu Sep 10 2009 - 13:45:48 CDT