Re: Code in the database or middle tier (the CLR controversy)
From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org>
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 13:20:29 -0700
Message-ID: <1117916310.346336_at_yasure>
>
>
> Here I don't agree with Daniel, and I will have to say that I was
> surprised to see his dismay for this syntax. Then again, it took me
> some time to start appreciate it. But it might be that Oracle's
> proprietary operator for outer join (+= or whatever it is) is less
> horrible than SQL Server's old *=.
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 13:20:29 -0700
Message-ID: <1117916310.346336_at_yasure>
Erland Sommarskog wrote:
>>Except that you might try learning ANSI join syntax.
>
>
> Here I don't agree with Daniel, and I will have to say that I was
> surprised to see his dismay for this syntax. Then again, it took me
> some time to start appreciate it. But it might be that Oracle's
> proprietary operator for outer join (+= or whatever it is) is less
> horrible than SQL Server's old *=.
[Quoted] Consider these two INNER JOINS formatted to match.
- ISO syntax SELECT p.last_name, t.title_name FROM person p , title t WHERE p.title_1 = t.title_abbrev;
- ANSI syntax SELECT p.last_name, t.title_name FROM person p INNER JOIN title t ON p.title_1 = t.title_abbrev;
Line 2:
What advantage in replacing a single
comma with "INNER JOIN"?
Line 3:
What value in replace WHERE with ON
[Quoted] If performance is identical? The issue is not much different from asking which is better, a car with the steering on the right or a car with the steering on the left.
[Quoted] Now I know those used to the ANSI syntax will likely be thinking compatibility with other systems. But those with 10+ years in Oracle will be thinking: So what!
-- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan_at_x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)Received on Sat Jun 04 2005 - 22:20:29 CEST