Benjamin Pflugmann wrote:
Hi.
On Wed 2002-07-24 at 09:46:03 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I understand it an ANSI92 join is written as;
SELECT b.columnA
FROM tableB AS b JOIN ON tableC AS c ON b.id = c.id
Ah. Okay. Was not aware that this was new in ANSI92.
Whereas the
Hi.
On Thu 2002-07-25 at 10:41:54 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Personally I find the former much easier to read though not sure about
the practical differences between them when the statements are executed.
AFAICT, there should be no differences on execution speed.
We
the practical differences between them when the statements are executed.
Regards,
Matt
-Original Message-
From: Benjamin Pflugmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 23 July 2002 18:23
To: Defryn, Guy
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: Joins, ANSI 92 or the old way
Hi.
On Wed 2002-07-17
Hi.
On Wed 2002-07-24 at 09:46:03 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I understand it an ANSI92 join is written as;
SELECT b.columnA
FROM tableB AS b JOIN ON tableC AS c ON b.id = c.id
Ah. Okay. Was not aware that this was new in ANSI92.
Whereas the 'old' style would be;
SELECT
Hi.
On Wed 2002-07-17 at 14:16:39 +1200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering what advantages one has over
the other.
I think the old way is easier but is it good enough?
I have no clue what you are talking about and I am sure I am not the
only one. Mind giving an example?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 17 July 2002 1:59 p.m.
To: Defryn, Guy
Subject: Re: Joins, ANSI 92 or the old way
Your message cannot be posted because it appears to be either spam or
simply off topic to our filter. To bypass
