RE: Speaking of New Features
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:41:47 -0400
Message-ID: <D1DC33E67722D54A93F05F702C99E2A90456F783_at_usahm208.amer.corp.eds.com>
I think the pl/sql parameter list format would be better since with comments in front of the values clause you do not eliminate the need to also have a separate column name list so you can insert the values in a non-default order or omit some of them and accept null for their value. Worse a typing error could result in the comments and the values not matching up properly.
- Mark D Powell --
Phone (313) 592-5148
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of chet justice
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 2:46 PM To: daniel.fink_at_optimaldba.com Cc: oracle-l Subject: Re: Speaking of New Features True, that would work. It's just ugly though...in my opinionanyway. :)
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 thecorrect 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 TimePerl 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 cleanup (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-lReceived on Thu Sep 10 2009 - 14:41:47 CDT