Re: Join types
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:22:47 -0400
Message-ID: <479b423c$0$4048$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>> JOG wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 25, 11:04 am, Gints Plivna <gints.pli..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm a bit studying join types and trying to make a visualisation of
>>>> relations among them. As a result I've created an ER diagram
>>>> describing relations among them and it can be found here:
>>>> http://gplivna.blogspot.com/2008/01/sql-join-types-im-studying-bit-sq...
>>>>
>>>> I've tried to find something like that using google however the best I
>>>> could get was textual description. I'm not mathematician and studied
>>>> set theory a bit 10 years ago in university and almost all have no
>>>> forgotten :) so maybe it has some problems from set theory viewpoint.
>>>> So question is - is it generally ok? If you know anything similar
>>>> please add link either here or in my blog post. All comments welcome!
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Gints
>>>
>>> Having only looked at your breakdown briefly, I can't give you much
>>> comment (although I thought your time-bomb discussion of natural joins
>>> was entertaining). However, I would say that in general I view natural
>>> joins, equi-joins, etc. as specializations of the generalized theta
>>> join. I'd be interested if other's share this perspective.
>>
>> I do not share the perspective. I prefer to view theta join as natural
>> join followed by restrict.
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:22:47 -0400
Message-ID: <479b423c$0$4048$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Jonathan Leffler wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote: >
>> JOG wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 25, 11:04 am, Gints Plivna <gints.pli..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm a bit studying join types and trying to make a visualisation of
>>>> relations among them. As a result I've created an ER diagram
>>>> describing relations among them and it can be found here:
>>>> http://gplivna.blogspot.com/2008/01/sql-join-types-im-studying-bit-sq...
>>>>
>>>> I've tried to find something like that using google however the best I
>>>> could get was textual description. I'm not mathematician and studied
>>>> set theory a bit 10 years ago in university and almost all have no
>>>> forgotten :) so maybe it has some problems from set theory viewpoint.
>>>> So question is - is it generally ok? If you know anything similar
>>>> please add link either here or in my blog post. All comments welcome!
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Gints
>>>
>>> Having only looked at your breakdown briefly, I can't give you much
>>> comment (although I thought your time-bomb discussion of natural joins
>>> was entertaining). However, I would say that in general I view natural
>>> joins, equi-joins, etc. as specializations of the generalized theta
>>> join. I'd be interested if other's share this perspective.
>>
>> I do not share the perspective. I prefer to view theta join as natural
>> join followed by restrict.
> > Can you explain how that works? I can see theta join as cartesian > product followed by restrict, but I don't see how you do a 'greater > than' join with a natural join -- unless you rename one (or both) of the > join terms so that natural join degenerates into cartesian product and > then you restrict on the renamed terms. But that's not an obvious use > of a natural join, I think.
Cartesian product is only a special case of natural join. How do you express the inequality if the join attributes have the same name? What is the corresponding value in each tuple?
>> One might argue it's just a question of one's choice of primitives. I
>> would argue that both natural join and restrict are simpler operations
>> than theta join.
Received on Sat Jan 26 2008 - 15:22:47 CET