On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Jerry Schwartz
jschwa...@the-infoshop.com wrote:
Somebody, I think it was somebody from MySQL, said that you should never put
anything into a WHERE clause that could be put into the ON clause of a JOIN.
My guess is that this helps with the optimization, but it
-Original Message-
From: baron.schwa...@gmail.com [mailto:baron.schwa...@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Baron Schwartz
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 10:03 AM
To: Jerry Schwartz
Cc: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: Re: WHERE vs. ON
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Jerry Schwartz
jschwa
Never tried it in MySQL and Im not
in a position to do so
at the moment
but in Oracle you can do a left outer join in the where
clause something
like this
SELECT t1.col1, t2.col2
FROM table1 t1, table2 t2
WHERE t1.join_col_name = t2.join_col_name(+)
Does this not work in MySQL?
Never tried it
-Original Message-
From: John Daisley [mailto:john.dais...@mypostoffice.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 10:41 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Cc: Jerry Schwartz
Subject: Re: WHERE vs. ON
Never tried it in MySQL and Im not
in a position to do so
at the moment
but in Oracle you can
Never tried it in MySQL and Im not
in a position to do so
at the moment
but in Oracle you can do a left outer join in the where
clause something
like this
SELECT t1.col1, t2.col2
FROM table1 t1, table2 t2
WHERE t1.join_col_name = t2.join_col_name(+)
Does this not work in MySQL?
Luckily, it
2009/2/4 Baron Schwartz ba...@xaprb.com
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Jerry Schwartz
jschwa...@the-infoshop.com wrote:
Somebody, I think it was somebody from MySQL, said that you should never
put
anything into a WHERE clause that could be put into the ON clause of a
JOIN.
My guess is
Somebody, I think it was somebody from MySQL, said that you should never put
anything into a WHERE clause that could be put into the ON clause of a JOIN.
My guess is that this helps with the optimization, but it seems
counter-intuitive to me. I've never followed that advice, but I'm starting
to
@lists.mysql.com
Subject: WHERE vs. ON
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:24:52 -0500
Somebody, I think it was somebody from MySQL, said that you should never put
anything into a WHERE clause that could be put into the ON clause of a JOIN.
My guess is that this helps with the optimization, but it seems
counter
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Jerry Schwartz
jschwa...@the-infoshop.com wrote:
Somebody, I think it was somebody from MySQL, said that you should never put
anything into a WHERE clause that could be put into the ON clause of a JOIN.
My guess is that this helps with the optimization, but it
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Jerry Schwartz
jschwa...@the-infoshop.com wrote:
From: Martin Gainty [mailto:mgai...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:03 PM
To: Jerry Schwartz; mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: RE: WHERE vs. ON
ON condition uses the same columnname from both source
From: Martin Gainty [mailto:mgai...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:03 PM
To: Jerry Schwartz; mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: RE: WHERE vs. ON
ON condition uses the same columnname from both source and target tables
whereas any column expressions can go in the WHERE
Good evening folks, I'm seeing some odd behavior in MySQL 4.0.21
running on Mac OS X 10.3.7
I'm trying to compare two identical tables and find the rows
that are new/modified. I can't use a timestamp column because
the new table is constantly regenerated. So I'm using a large
WHERE clause and
Rene Churchill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/22/2005 09:21:29 AM:
Good evening folks, I'm seeing some odd behavior in MySQL 4.0.21
running on Mac OS X 10.3.7
I'm trying to compare two identical tables and find the rows
that are new/modified. I can't use a timestamp column because
the new
Rene Churchill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/22/2005 04:23:47 PM:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rene Churchill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/22/2005 03:39:05
PM:
Hi Shawn,
This is what I wound up going with:
SELECT b.id,
if(a.a = b.a, NULL, b.a),
if(a.b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is what I wound up going with:
SELECT b.id,
if(a.a = b.a, NULL, b.a),
if(a.b = b.b, NULL, b.b),
if(a.c = b.c, NULL, b.c),
(NOT (a.a = b.a) AND
(a.b = b.b) AND
(a.c =
Good evening folks, I'm seeing some odd behavior in MySQL 4.0.21
running on Mac OS X 10.3.7
I'm trying to compare two identical tables and find the rows
that are new/modified. I can't use a timestamp column because
the new table is constantly regenerated. So I'm using a large
WHERE clause and
Hello list
While browsing old sources by a former employee I realised that he always
did comma seperated joins and then a "where"
FROM
tablea a, tableb b, tablec c
WHERE
a.id=b.id and b.nr=c.nr
whereas I learned to do
FROM
tablea a
Christian Hammers wrote:
Hello list
While browsing old sources by a former employee I realised that he always
did comma seperated joins and then a "where"
FROM
tablea a, tableb b, tablec c
WHERE
a.id=b.id and b.nr=c.nr
whereas I learned to do
Steve Ruby wrote:
Christian Hammers wrote:
Hello list
While browsing old sources by a former employee I realised that he always
did comma seperated joins and then a "where"
FROM
tablea a, tableb b, tablec c
WHERE
a.id=b.id and b.nr=c.nr
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:29:20AM -0700, Steve Ruby wrote:
He is doing an inner join, you are doing a left join, they (potentialy)
do not produce the same results.
Hmm have to think about it... inner means fields where the right table has
a NULL value in the condition are left out, right?
If
Christian Hammers wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:29:20AM -0700, Steve Ruby wrote:
He is doing an inner join, you are doing a left join, they (potentialy)
do not produce the same results.
Hmm have to think about it... inner means fields where the right table has
a NULL value in the
Christian Hammers wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:29:20AM -0700, Steve Ruby wrote:
He is doing an inner join, you are doing a left join, they (potentialy)
do not produce the same results.
Hmm have to think about it... inner means fields where the right table has
a NULL value in the
22 matches
Mail list logo
