Re: ANSI Join improvement

From: <>
Date: 21 Jun 2006 13:39:44 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Aloha Kakuikanu wrote:
> wrote:
> > At the risk of being labeled a crank...
> >
> > I'm looking for someone to tell me whether my idea for improving the
> > ANSI Join syntax has any merit. One thing about the current syntax
> > that often strikes me is I usually join tables on identically named
> > columns, and NATURAL joins are perfect for this situation:
> You don't need ANSI Join syntax. It's ugly, redundant, and plain
> dangerous (think of NATURAL JOIN).
I disagree 95%. (I would have disagreed less, before just now learning about the USING keyword). I think separating the join conditions from the selection conditions was a wise semantic decision, and have found that it makes "pick up a query and figure out what it does" much easier. And don't get me started on how glad I am to never have to use "a = b(+)" construct again.

Admittedly, I wonder it could have been done with a more concise or clean syntax ("NATURAL LEFT OUTER JOIN" makes me think "THESE GUYS MUST HAVE USED COBOL BEFORE"), but that's where my 5% comes in.

> > Any thoughts on this? I have the ANSI committee on hold right now, and
> > I don't know if they will put up with the elevator music for much
> > longer....
> ANSI committee no longer exists. I went out and shot each and every of
> them with my 9mm.
Received on Wed Jun 21 2006 - 22:39:44 CEST

Original text of this message