I just wanted to thank you for such a thorough response, it has helped me a
lot as I've always ignored the existence of joins.
Thanks,
Matt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The sequence you use to JOIN a set of tables is sometimes determined
> completely by the log
The sequence you use to JOIN a set of tables is sometimes determined
completely by the logic of the JOIN. You should perform all of your CROSS
JOINs and INNER JOINs first (a comma is equivalent to a CROSS JOIN but
starting with 5.0.12 the comma has a LOWER evaluation priority than an
explicit J
What would be the most efficient order to join in? Say I have one main
table with most columns (I assume this should be the main table of the
query) then each table relates to the next, is it as simple as putting them
in order?
"Peter Brawley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAI
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
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
