RE: [HACKERS] Outer Joins (and need CASE help)

From: "Jackson, DeJuan" <djackson(at)cpsgroup(dot)com>
To: "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, "Jackson, DeJuan" <djackson(at)cpsgroup(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Outer Joins (and need CASE help)
Date: 1999-01-08 18:22:28
Message-ID: F10BB1FAF801D111829B0060971D839F5C5E1F@cpsmail
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> > I could be wrong (I don't have a copy of the standard), but I don't
> > believe that the above syntax follows the standard. Let me know if
> > I'm wrong, but my understanding of the syntax would be more like:
> > SELECT * FROM t1 JOIN t2 ON (t1.i = t2.i);
> > with the same result set as you listed (t2.i isn't suppressed).
> > This would have a difference in approach from the above.
> If I wanted
> > to join on columns with different names I couldn't use your
> syntax (as
> > one example).
>
> The standard allows both syntaxes; USING is simpler to type, and ON is
> more general, as you point out.
>
> In fact, the standard is annoyingly helpful in allowing
> multiple ways to
> write the same query. Makes the parsing and parse tree transformation
> more complicated :(
Sorry for the extra work load, but hey that's cool.

> - Tom
-DEJ

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jordan Henderson 1999-01-08 19:03:01 Re: [HACKERS] ["G. Jayson Stangel" <jayson@biztown.com>] Question s?
Previous Message Jackson, DeJuan 1999-01-08 18:20:29 RE: [HACKERS] ["G. Jayson Stangel" <jayson@biztown.com>] Question s?