Ok. I think I have Oracle8 style outer joins working. I'll take a shot at the other ones tomorrow.
On 8/17/06, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, actually there was some discussion before to use such syntax for the inner joins as well. I am all for it (I guess we have to preserve a backdoor for the old syntax in case some db does not support such syntax). Andrus On Aug 17, 2006, at 5:17 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote: > Even better link > > http://www.devx.com/dbzone/Article/17403/0/page/3 > > Looks like we do away with WHERE clause joins altogether (at least for > Oracle) and explicly join everything with ON statements. > > On 8/17/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This is somewhat helpful for the various kinds of joins. >> >> http://www.praetoriate.com/oracle_tips_outer_joins.htm >> >> Still looking for complex examples. >> >> On 8/17/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On 8/17/06, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > It would be nice if we could implement the translator using >> standard >> > > SQL syntax ("left outer join" instead of "(+)"), as it will >> work on >> > > most DB's including Oracle (starting from 9i), while the "(+)" >> syntax >> > > only works on Oracle (and is probably considered legacy syntax by >> > > Oracle too). >> > > >> > > select >> > > name, >> > > department_name >> > > from >> > > employees e >> > > left outer join >> > > departments d >> > > on >> > > e.department_id = d.department_id; >> > > >> > > It will be somewhat harder to implement, but will solve the issue >> > > once and for all. >> > >> > Well, sure, now you tell me :-) >> > >> > My Oracle Reference Book is Oracle8, so I didn't realize we had a >> > better choice :-) >> > >> > I guess I need to see if I can find some documentation on this >> format. >> > >> > The simple example is obvious, but what does it look like with more >> > tables involved, some with more outer joins and some without? >> > >> >
