Hello,
Vlad Mihalcea [1] was so kind to point me to this mailing list with my
question about implicit joins. The user guide [2] states that:
"Implicit joins are always treated as inner joins."
To me, this seems wrong, semantically, if implicit joins follow optional
(nullable) foreign key rela
th Expressions , "Path
> expression navigability is composed using “inner join” semantics."
>
> On 22 February 2018 at 08:09, Lukas Eder wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Vlad Mihalcea [1] was so kind to point me to this mailing list with my
>> q
2018-02-22 13:19 GMT+01:00 Vlad Mihalcea :
> Hi,
>
> One possible reason was to have a single way of treating implicit joins.
>
Sure, but if paths generated only outer joins, your statement would still
be true.
> In WHERE and ORDER BY clauses, implicit join makes sense to render an
> INNER JOIN
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your message. Of course, being explicit always has the advantage
of ... being explicit. But my question here is really about the implicit
join feature and how it works.
2018-02-22 15:57 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole :
> it is better to be consistent in how implicit joins are hand
2018-02-22 21:39 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole :
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:11 AM Lukas Eder wrote:
>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> Thanks for your message. Of course, being explicit always has the
>> advantage of ... being explicit. But my question here is really about the
>&
