Matt,
>When using JOINS by the simply supplying a comma separated list of
tables in
>the FROM clause, is the ON argument normally associated with a join
intended
>to be addressed in the WHERE clause, or should ON still be used?
There's no ON clause for a join specified by a WHERE clause, and that's
one reason specifiying joins with JOIN ... ON .. is almost always
preferable--it entirely disambiguates the join for the writer, readers,
and those others who later will have to divine what you meant :-) .
PB
-----
Matt Monaco wrote:
>When using JOINS by the simply supplying a comma separated list of tables in
>the FROM clause, is the ON argument normally associated with a join intended
>to be addressed in the WHERE clause, or should ON still be used?
>
>// Comma separated join
>SELECT u.*, a.city FROM users u, addresses a WHERE u.id=a.user_id;
>
>// Actual JOIN clause
>SELECT u.*, a.city FROM users u INNER JOIN addresses a ON u.id=a.user_id;
>
>
>// Query style in question
>SELECT u.*, a.city FROM users u, addresses a ON u.id=a.user_id;
>
>If not ON, is there at least another viable argument? The reason I'm
>interested is for a query involving 5 or 6 tables and WHERE arguments which
>do not deal with the relationships. I would like to assure the efficiency
>of this query.
>
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Matt
>
>
>
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/184 - Release Date: 11/27/2005
