> On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 01:59:22PM -0700, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > is it a good practice to leave this included in > the > > queries, as is, or should i factor it out somehow? > if > > i should factor it, how do i do so? > > If what you're saying is that these additional > criteria are > redundant, then it's up to you: what do you want to > optimise for? If > you're protecting against future errors, then the > additional > criteria might help. If you're protecting against > having to write > your code to produce a more efficient query, you > should weigh the > cost and benefit (which benefit includes "easier to > debug queries"). > There is a probably non-zero cost to the extra > joins.
Andrew and Rod, my apologies for not being more clear in my question. all the code is required to get from t_inspect_result data back to t_product information. however, many of the joins are used over and over and over - making for a complex query to view and try and to debug - not to mention forcing a long trail of chasing linked data to get from t_inspect_result_id back to the linked t_product data. Thanks for taking the time to address the question - and i will try and be more clear going forward. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
