September 22, 2009 at 10:25 am
Was it 'ANSI SQL-89 syntax' you were thinking of?
Nope. :crazy: It's a slang term (very descriptive, I think). When I do find it, it'll be a great question of the day.
Something Like: "When you hear the term "_____ Joins", are we referring to:
1) 'ANSI SQL-89'
2)'ANSI/ISO SQL 2003'
3) NULLs and three-valued logic (3VL)
4) SQL 2008
Probably an unfair question, but fun. 😀
September 22, 2009 at 10:27 am
SSSolice (9/22/2009)
Nope. :crazy:
I feel your pain.
You know you will remember it at about 2AM, then you'll fall asleep and have forgotten by the morning!! 😀
Atlantis Interactive - SQL Server Tools
My blog[/url]
Why I wrote a sql query analyzer clone
September 22, 2009 at 10:41 am
B-I-N-G-O......I found the original source of where I first saw this term: "COMMA JOINS". So... OK, maybe it's not as clever as I had remembered, but it is very descriptive.
Posted By SQLSister on the Tek-Tips SQL Programming forum:
...Next learn to use ANSI standard joins. Never use those crappy comma joins again. They are horrible to maintain and often give bad results because it is very easy to acidentally get a cross join. Further, you will need to actually understand joins in order to do left joins which cannot accurately be done in that format at all in SQL Server. The standard is 17 years old, it is time to bite the bullet and learn it.
So I've put the real task off long enough. I have no more excuses. Now I must face the big, bad, and the ugly multiple cursor'd query which calls multiple procedural coded functions which call yet more procedure coded functions and comma join usin' From clauses.
Now I know you can feel my pain. Wish me luck.
Thanks again.
September 22, 2009 at 11:30 am
SSSolice (9/22/2009)
There is a Where clause. It is indeed an "old-style" join. What I'm looking for is the term used to describe the old-style join. I've seen it used here and on other forums. ?? Somebody out there knows it! Thanks for the comments guys.
The "technical" term would be an ANSI-89 style join as opposed to an ANSI-92 style join. Basically the older syntax was last supported in 1989 as a part of the ANSI standard. The "new" version was introduced in the 1992 standard.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
September 22, 2009 at 6:20 pm
SSSolice (9/22/2009)
B-I-N-G-O......I found the original source of where I first saw this term: "COMMA JOINS". So... OK, maybe it's not as clever as I had remembered, but it is very descriptive.Posted By SQLSister on the Tek-Tips SQL Programming forum:
...Next learn to use ANSI standard joins. Never use those crappy comma joins again. They are horrible to maintain and often give bad results because it is very easy to acidentally get a cross join. Further, you will need to actually understand joins in order to do left joins which cannot accurately be done in that format at all in SQL Server. The standard is 17 years old, it is time to bite the bullet and learn it.
So I've put the real task off long enough. I have no more excuses. Now I must face the big, bad, and the ugly multiple cursor'd query which calls multiple procedural coded functions which call yet more procedure coded functions and comma join usin' From clauses.
Now I know you can feel my pain. Wish me luck.
Thanks again.
I believe the term you may have heard before, no matter how inappropriate it may have been, is "equi-join". And, as others have stated, the join you have in your original post creates a cross join because there is no join reference to the tblhost table.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
Viewing 5 posts - 16 through 19 (of 19 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply