Re: Simple SQL?

Try re-writing the SELECT I originally posted using joins.

"JRStern" <JRStern_at_gte.net> wrote in message news:3b0969fa.4960843_at_news.gte.net...
> On Sun, 20 May 2001 15:02:20 -0700, "Isaac Blank" <izblank_at_yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > The keyword is, of course, "multiple", right? Well, if there are
> >multiple tables or table expressions mentioned in the FROM clause, then
 it
> >is a join. In our case both FROM clauses you underlined only mention one
> >table each, so they are not joins, but subqueries that happen to be
> >correlated - because the WHERE clause contains references to the outer
 query
> >context.
>
> Piffle. Lots of antique SQL has multitable equates in the FROM
> clause, even when values are only selected from one table. Your
> assertion is that these are EXISTS and not JOINS. Well, then, use the
> EXIST syntax in the query, and I'll grant you style points. However,
> under the covers, the engine still has to look at two tables, and it's
> going to be a rare system today that does this simple kind of query
> much differently, no matter what syntax you use.
>
> So, as you speculate, I tend to be lazy and use join syntax rather
> than Exists, but I'd prefer either to the simple equate in the From.
>
> J.
>
>
Received on Sun Jul 22 2001 - 01:24:55 CEST