![]() | |
#11
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Harry Skelton" <skelton.harry (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:480a17e5$0$22078$6e1ede2f (AT) read (DOT) cnntp.org... yawnmoth wrote: Out of curiosity, can every LEFT JOIN be rewritten as a query with RIGHT JOINs? It seems to me that if you just take the "leftmost" table and use that in the FROM part of a SELECT that all subsequent LEFT JOINs would need to be RIGHT JOINs... LEFT and RIGHT joins dictate precedence of the tables/queries. You could do it either way, but what data you get back will be different. If you do as you say, it is not merely changing the LEFT to a RIGHT, you are changing the entire SQL query. This can cause unforeseen problems, [...] are actually returned. Total nonsense. |
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Harry Skelton" <skelton.harry (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:480a17e5$0$22078$6e1ede2f (AT) read (DOT) cnntp.org... yawnmoth wrote: Out of curiosity, can every LEFT JOIN be rewritten as a query with RIGHT JOINs? It seems to me that if you just take the "leftmost" table and use that in the FROM part of a SELECT that all subsequent LEFT JOINs would need to be RIGHT JOINs... LEFT and RIGHT joins dictate precedence of the tables/queries. You could do it either way, but what data you get back will be different. If you do as you say, it is not merely changing the LEFT to a RIGHT, you are changing the entire SQL query. This can cause unforeseen problems, [...] are actually returned. Total nonsense. |
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Harry Skelton" <skelton.harry (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:480a17e5$0$22078$6e1ede2f (AT) read (DOT) cnntp.org... yawnmoth wrote: Out of curiosity, can every LEFT JOIN be rewritten as a query with RIGHT JOINs? It seems to me that if you just take the "leftmost" table and use that in the FROM part of a SELECT that all subsequent LEFT JOINs would need to be RIGHT JOINs... LEFT and RIGHT joins dictate precedence of the tables/queries. You could do it either way, but what data you get back will be different. If you do as you say, it is not merely changing the LEFT to a RIGHT, you are changing the entire SQL query. This can cause unforeseen problems, [...] are actually returned. Total nonsense. |
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
as you say, it is not merely changing the LEFT to a RIGHT, you are changing the entire SQL query. This can cause unforeseen problems, [...] are actually returned. Total nonsense. How about making some sense out of it, Roy? Here my two cents: It's not clear to me that the OP understands that A LEFT JOIN B is equivalent to B RIGHT JOIN A... But if the OP does understand that, then obviously (s)he means more than just changing every LEFT JOIN to a RIGHT JOIN. |
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
as you say, it is not merely changing the LEFT to a RIGHT, you are changing the entire SQL query. This can cause unforeseen problems, [...] are actually returned. Total nonsense. How about making some sense out of it, Roy? Here my two cents: It's not clear to me that the OP understands that A LEFT JOIN B is equivalent to B RIGHT JOIN A... But if the OP does understand that, then obviously (s)he means more than just changing every LEFT JOIN to a RIGHT JOIN. |
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
as you say, it is not merely changing the LEFT to a RIGHT, you are changing the entire SQL query. This can cause unforeseen problems, [...] are actually returned. Total nonsense. How about making some sense out of it, Roy? Here my two cents: It's not clear to me that the OP understands that A LEFT JOIN B is equivalent to B RIGHT JOIN A... But if the OP does understand that, then obviously (s)he means more than just changing every LEFT JOIN to a RIGHT JOIN. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |