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.
>
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
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
sure about
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
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?
Gre
-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.
