We have a Oracle 10g and most of our applications are running Oracle Forms 6i. I found that all of the queries written in views/packages/procedures/functions are JOINING tables at WHERE clause level. Example
SELECT * FROM
TABLE_A A,
TABLE_B B,
TABLE_C C,
TABLE_D D
WHERE
A.ID=B.ID(+)
AND B.NO=C.NO(+)
AND C.STATUS=D.ID
AND C.STATUS NOT LIKE 'PENDING%'
This query applies only to ORACLE since it has the (+) join qualifier which is not acceptable in other SQL platforms. The above query is equivalent to:
SELECT * FROM
TABLE_A A LEFT JOIN TABLE_B B ON A.ID=B.ID
LEFT JOIN TABLE_C C ON B.NO=C.NO
JOIN TABLE_D D ON C.STATUS=D.ID
WHERE
C.STATUS NOT LIKE 'PENDING%'
Non of the queries I have seen is written with join taking place in the FROM clause.
My question can be divided into three parts:
Q: Assuming that I have the same Oracle environment, which query is better in terms of performance, cache, CPU load, etc. The first one (joining at WHERE) or the second (joining at FROM)
Q: Is there any other implementation of SQL that accepts the (+) join qualifier other than oracle? if yes, which?
Q: Maybe having the join written at WHERE clause makes the query more readable but compromises the ability to LEFT/RIGHT join, that's why the (+) was for. Where can I read more about the origin of this (+) and why it was invented specifically to Oracle?
Q1. No difference. You can check it using profiling and compare execution plan.
Q2. As I know, only oracle support it. But it is not recommended to use in latest version of Oracle RDBMS:
Oracle recommends that you use the FROM clause OUTER JOIN syntax
rather than the Oracle join operator. Outer join queries that use the
Oracle join operator (+) are subject to the following rules and
restrictions, which do not apply to the FROM clause OUTER JOIN syntax:
Q3. Oracle "invent" (+) before outer join was specified in SQL ANSI.
There should be no performance difference. Assuming you're on a vaguely recent version of Oracle, Oracle will implicitly convert the SQL 99 syntax to the equivalent Oracle-specific syntax. Of course, there are bugs in all software so it is possible that one or the other will perform differently because of some bug. The more recent the version of Oracle, the less likely you'll see a difference.
The (+) operator (and a variety of other outer join operators in other databases) were created because the SQL standard didn't have a standard way of expressing an outer join until the SQL 99 standard. Prior to then, every vendor created their own extensions. It took Oracle a few years beyond that to support the new syntax. Between the fact that bugs were more common in the initial releases of SQL 99 support (not common but more common than they are now), the fact that products needed to continue to support older database versions that didn't support the new syntax, and people being generally content with the old syntax, there is still plenty of code being written today that uses the old Oracle syntax.
A1:
As far as I know they vary in-terms of syntax not in performance. So there is no difference between joining at 'where' clause and joining at 'from' clause.
A2:
To answer this in better way, 'Joining at FROM' clause is standard across all the platforms. So forget about (+) symbols
A3
I have worked in Oracle for sometimes. People use (+) symbols for left/right join because it's easy to write. Some ppl use join at (FROM) clause because it's more readable and understandable.
Hope these points helps you. Please let me know incase am wrong with anything.
One difference between Oracle syntax and ANSI syntax is:
In Oracle syntax you cannot make a FULL OUTER JOIN, there you have to use ANSI syntax.
Oracle introduced ANSI syntax in Oracle 9i - including several bugs. In the meantime since Oracle 11 or 12 it works quite well, but you may discover some obstacles in Oracle 9/10.
Another advandage of ANSI Join syntax is you cannot forget any join condition.
"SELECT * FROM TABLE_A, TABLE_B" performs implicitly a Cross-Join. "SELECT * FROM TABLE_A JOIN TABLE_B" raise an error, you are forced to provide the join condition. If you want to Cross-Join you have to specify it, i.e. "SELECT * FROM TABLE_A CROSS JOIN TABLE_B"
Related
I remember this question from exam ( I fail in exam) and need help to choose correct answer. I can't find this in Google.
Which three statements are true about the Oracle join and ANSI join syntax?
A. The Oracle join syntax supports natural joins.
B. The Oracle join syntax performs less well than the SQL:1999 compliant ANSI join syntax.
C. The Oracle join syntax supports creation of a Cartesian product of two tables.
D. The SQL:1999 compliant ANSI join syntax supports natural joins.
E. The Oracle join syntax performs better than the SQL:1999 compliant ANSI join syntax.
F. The Oracle join syntax only supports right outer joins.
G. The SQL:1999 compliant ANSI join syntax supports creation of a Cartesian product of two tables.
The answers the exam expects are:
C. The Oracle join syntax supports creation of a Cartesian product of two tables.
D. The SQL:1999 compliant ANSI join syntax supports natural joins.
G. The SQL:1999 compliant ANSI join syntax supports creation of a Cartesian product of two tables.
C. is interesting, because Oracle (AKA SQL:89 compliant ANSI) join syntax doesn't have an explicit notation for CROSS joining: we just omit the relevant criteria in the WHERE clause. This makes it too easy to accidentally create Cartesian products, and is one of the arguments in favour of using SQL:99.
The fifth option highlights the problem with such exam questions:
E. The Oracle join syntax performs better than the SQL:1999 compliant ANSI join syntax.
Whilst this is generally not true and performance is equivalent, there are edge cases where it is true, mainly related to outer joins. The more recent our version of Oracle the fewer and more edgy those cases become. It's not an argument for using the older syntax, just something to bear in mind. Find out more.
"What specific syntactical construct in Oracle is equivalent to CROSS JOIN?"
What the exam question refers to as "Oracle syntax" is the ANSI SQL 89 syntax of implicit joins. That is, there is no specific syntax for defining joins; rather the WHERE clause is used for declaring both join conditions and filter conditions. So, the equivalent of CROSS JOIN in the older syntax is simply the absence of a join condition in the WHERE clause.
I have a query where i am retrieving data from more than two tables. I am using the filter criteria in where clause but not using any join keyword
select
d.proc_code,
d.dos,
s.svc_type
from
claim_detail d, h_claim_hdr hh, car_svc s
where
d.bu_id="$inp_bu_id"
and
hh.bu_id="$inp_bu_id"
and
s.bu_id="$inp_bu_id"
and
d.audit_nbr="$inp_audit_nbr"
and
hh.audit_nbr="$inp_audit_nbr"
and
d.audit_nbr=hh.audit_nbr
and
s.car_svc_nbr=hh.aut_nbr
Is there a better way of writing this?
Although you are not using a JOIN keyword, your query does perform a JOIN.
A more "modern" way of writing your query (i.e. one following the ANSI SQL standard) would be as follows:
select
d.proc_code,
d.dos,
s.svc_type
from
claim_detail d
join
h_claim_hdr hh on d.audit_nbr=hh.audit_nbr
join
car_svc s on s.car_svc_nbr=hh.aut_nbr
where
d.bu_id="$inp_bu_id"
and
hh.bu_id="$inp_bu_id"
and
s.bu_id="$inp_bu_id"
and
d.audit_nbr="$inp_audit_nbr"
and
hh.audit_nbr="$inp_audit_nbr"
Note that this is simply a modern syntax. It expresses the same query, and it will not impact the performance.
Note that in order for a row to appear in the output of this query, the corresponding rows must exist in all three queries (i.e. it's an inner join). If you would like to return rows of claim_detail for which no h_claim_hdr and / or car_svc existed, use left outer join instead.
A comma in the from clause is essentially the same as a cross join. You really don't want to use a cross join, unless you really know what you are doing.
Proper join syntax has several advantages. The most important of which is the ability to express other types of joins easily and compatibly across databases.
Most people would probably find this version easier to follow and maintain:
select d.proc_code, d.dos, s.svc_type
from claim_detail d join
h_claim_hdr hh
on d.bu_id = hh.bu_id and d.audit_nbr = hh.audit_nbr
car_svc s
on d.bu_id = s.bu_id and s.car_svc_nbr = hh.aut_nbr
where d.bu_id = "$inp_bu_id"
d.audit_nbr = "$inp_audit_nbr";
Using the WHERE clause instead of the JOIN keyword is essentially a different syntax for doing a join. I believe it is called Theta syntax, where using the JOIN clause is called ANSI syntax.
I believe ANSI syntax is almost universally recommended, and some databases require ANSI syntax for outer JOINs.
If you do not use JOIN it will be an implicit inner join. As is in your example with the join criteria on your WHERE clause. So you could me missing records. Lets say you want all records from the first table even if there is not a corresponding record in the second. Your current code would only return the records from the first table that have a matching record in the second.
Joins
what is the difference between these two sql statements
a) select * from T1,T2 where T1.A=T2.A ;
b) select * from T1,T2 where T2.A=T1.A ;
I am getting the same output in both cases,is there any differences between both statements?
c) select * from T1 inner join T2 on T1.A=T2.A ;
What is the diffence between Statement C and a?in that case also getting the same output as of a and b...
Can Inner Joins also be written as sql statement a?
They are all essentially different ways to join two tables using the same join condition.
Between 1 and 2, there is absolutely no difference as far as the database is concerned.
The last option is the standardized join syntax - this is what you should be using in order to ensure your SQL is readable - this is what people reading your SQL will expect to see when you join tables.
All are the same there is no difference
These are diiferent ways
SQL is like mathematics that way; equality is symmetric. If A = B, then B = A. There should be no difference.
The JOIN/ON notation is just another way to write the same thing. The notation is different to emphasize the join visually.
The output tells you the answer better than any number of SO users will. Why don't you believe your own eyes?
(a) and (c) are same except the second is ANSI-92 SQL syntax and the first is the older SQL syntax which didn't incorporate the join clause. They should produce exactly the same internal query plan, although you may like to check.
You should use the ANSI-92 syntax for several of reasons
The use of the JOIN clause separates the relationship logic from the
filter logic (the WHERE) and is thus cleaner and easier to
understand.
It doesn't matter with this particular query, but there are a few
circumstances where the older outer join syntax (using + ) is
ambiguous and the query results are hence implementation dependent -
or the query cannot be resolved at all. These do not occur with
ANSI-92
It's good practice as most developers and dba's will use ANSI-92
nowadays and you should follow the standard. Certainly all modern
query tools will generate ANSI-92.
This question already has answers here:
INNER JOIN ON vs WHERE clause
(12 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I have two select join SQL statements:
select a.id from table_a as a, table_b as b where a.id=b.id;
select a.id from table_a as a inner join table_b as b on a.id=b.id;
Obviously, they are the same in result. But is there any difference between them , such as performance, portability.
One difference is that the first option hides the intent by expressing the join condition in the where clause.
The second option, where the join condition is written out is more clear for the user reading the query. It shows the exact intent of the query.
As far as performance or any other difference, there shouldn't be any. Both queries should return the exact same result and perform the same under most RDBMS.
The inner join syntax was added to SQL sometime in the 1990s. It's possible, but unlikely, that the optimizer can do better with it than with the old syntax that used the where clause for the join condition.
They should both be highly portable as things are now.
The inner join syntax is preferable because it is easier on the reader, as others have already remarked.
Both are standard SQL. Different DB systems may optimize them differently, but because they are so simple, I would be a little surprised if they do. But that is the nature of SQL: it is declarative, which gives the implementation a great deal of leeway in how to execute your query. There is no guarantee that these perform the same, or if they are different, which is faster.
They are exactly the same in SQL server. There is no performance difference.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicates:
WHERE clause better execute before IN and JOIN or after
INNER JOIN versus WHERE clause — any difference?
What, if any, are the differences between the following?
Select
col1,
col2
from TableA A, TableB B
where A.ID = B.ID
and
Select
col1,
col2
From TableA A
Inner Join TableB B on A.ID = B.ID
They seem to have the same behaviors in SQL,
They will likely be optimized to the same thing by the RDBMS. They both JOIN the tables on the A.ID = B.ID criteria.
However, the JOIN syntax is explicit and considered correct.
The former is ANSI-89 syntax, and the latter is ANSI-92 syntax. The latter should almost always be used due to the fact that it's much clearer when you start to use outer joins when expressed in ANSI-92 syntax.
The first syntax is (as you pointed out) a cross join or Cartesian product of the two tables. In a system with no optimizer (or a poor optimizer) this will produce a combination of every record in the first table combined with every record in the second table, then filter them down to just those matching the WHERE clause.
The output from both statements will be the same, and if the system you are using has a good optimizer than the performance will be the same as well.
Two comments I would offer:
1) I find it better to be explicit about your intent when writing statements. If you intended to perform an INNER JOIN then use the INNER JOIN syntax. Future you 6 months form now will be thankful.
2) The optimizer in SQL Server will perform an INNER JOIN in this situation (at least recent versions, can't guarantee all versions), but how well it guesses that path is going to depend on the version of the SQL Server engine and is not guaranteed to remain the same in the future (I doubt it will change in this situation, but is the cost of a few more characters of typing really that high?)
#ypercube correctly pointed out your question is about two different INNER JOIN syntaxes. You don't have any outer join syntax. As #Matt Whitfield pointed out, the first syntax is ANSI-92 and the second one is ANSI-89 style. I agree with matt entirely that in more complicated queries the ANSI-92 syntax is way way more readable.
Furthermore, depending on your version of SQL Server THE ANSI-89 syntax is DEPRECATED and can give you problems. See SR0010: Avoid using deprecated syntax when you join tables or views In fact, in the next version SQL 2011, or Denali, or whatever we're calling it, the ANSI-89 syntax will not be supported. See: Features Not Supported in the Next Version of SQL Server
(search for the word "join").