Re: [HACKERS] JOIN syntax. Examples?

From: "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: "Jackson, DeJuan" <djackson(at)cpsgroup(dot)com>
Cc: Dan Gowin <DGowin(at)avantec(dot)net>, "PGSQL HACKERS (E-mail)" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] JOIN syntax. Examples?
Date: 1998-12-11 22:11:28
Message-ID: 36719890.2B7BB866@alumni.caltech.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Microsoft SQL Server v6.5 have SQL92 join syntax. I don't have the
> standard in front of me but here's what I remember.

OK, it's pretty clear that Oracle doesn't implement SQL92-syntax on
outer joins (unless they support it as an alternative; does anyone find
"OUTER JOIN" in the syntax docs?).

Let's assume that M$ may be close to standard, but given that they don't
bother following standards in other areas (WHERE x = NULL, etc) we can't
use them as a truth generator.

We are looking for a system which supports syntax like DeJuan gave:

SELECT * FROM (A LEFT OUTER JOIN B USING (X));
or
SELECT * FROM (A LEFT OUTER JOIN B ON (A.X = B.X));

etc. if we are going to try for the SQL92 standard,

rather than the Oracle form:

SELECT * FROM A, B WHERE A.X = (+) B.X;

or the Informix form:

SELECT * FROM A, OUTER B WHERE A.X = B.X;
(is the WHERE clause required here?)

Does anyone have a non-M$ RDBMS which implements SQL92 joins?

otoh, any system which can test the results of a query, even if the
query needs to be translated first, has some benefit. As/if I progress
I'll take some of you up on the offer to run queries.

- Tom

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oliver Elphick 1998-12-11 22:35:18 Re: [HACKERS] JOIN syntax. Examples?
Previous Message Jackson, DeJuan 1998-12-11 18:28:01 RE: [HACKERS] JOIN syntax. Examples?