IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Databases Forum / Simpler SQL
Post #208,729
by ChrisR
5/26/05 3:57:11 PM
5/26/05 4:01:40 PM
Reply
New Simpler SQL 
\nUPDATE supplier\nSET supplier_name = cus.name\nFROM\n   supplier sup\n   INNER JOIN customers cus ON(\n      (cus.customer_id = sup.supplier_id))\n


or alternatively

\nUPDATE supplier\nSET supplier_name = cus.name\nFROM\n   supplier sup,\n   customers cus\nWHERE (cus.customer_id = sup.supplier_id)\n

Expand Edited by ChrisR May 26, 2005, 04:01:40 PM EDT
Expand All History
Post #208,879
by tablizer
5/27/05 9:06:38 PM
Reply
New My 1999 book implies UPDATE....FROM is not standard
________________
oop.ismad.com
Post #208,886
by ChrisR
5/27/05 9:57:05 PM
Reply
New Probably so...
...at least that's the same thing the [link|http://developer.mimer.com/validator/|Mimer Validator] says.

Which is a shame, since it makes UPDATE and DELETE have the the same structure as the SELECT queries. That is, I typically want to know the rows effected before running the delete. Typical of my manual deletes, is to run the SELECT * on the operation just for a sanity check:
\nUPDATE supplier\nSET supplier_name = cus.name\n-- SELECT *\nFROM\n   supplier sup\n   INNER JOIN customers cus ON(\n      (cus.customer_id = sup.supplier_id))\n
     Simple SQL look-up turns out hairy - (tablizer) - (51) - May 26, 2005, 03:12:19 PM EDT
         I awalys hated SQL based batch updates - (broomberg) - (12) - May 26, 2005, 03:16:23 PM EDT
             Let's bring back FoxPro! - (tablizer) - (11) - May 26, 2005, 03:25:54 PM EDT
                 Silly person you - (broomberg) - (10) - May 26, 2005, 04:06:28 PM EDT
                     Preach! -NT - (drewk) - May 26, 2005, 04:33:17 PM EDT
                     63.472% Disagree - (tablizer) - May 27, 2005, 09:02:12 PM EDT
                     Real world example - (broomberg) - (7) - June 21, 2005, 07:36:14 PM EDT
                         I am not sure what your point is - (tablizer) - (6) - June 21, 2005, 08:02:51 PM EDT
                             It's been done already - (broomberg) - (5) - June 21, 2005, 08:11:42 PM EDT
                                 Or PL/SQL, or TransactSQL, or... -NT - (admin) - (4) - June 21, 2005, 09:10:53 PM EDT
                                     Nah - (broomberg) - (2) - June 21, 2005, 11:13:03 PM EDT
                                         I didn't say they were the best. - (admin) - (1) - June 21, 2005, 11:16:54 PM EDT
                                             I know. I do. - (broomberg) - June 21, 2005, 11:20:25 PM EDT
                                     I find PL/SQL and Transact/SQL too verbose -NT - (tablizer) - June 22, 2005, 01:03:50 AM EDT
         COALESCE - (drewk) - May 26, 2005, 03:30:37 PM EDT
         Re: Simple SQL look-up turns out hairy - (JayMehaffey) - May 26, 2005, 03:52:18 PM EDT
         Simpler SQL - (ChrisR) - (2) - May 26, 2005, 04:01:40 PM EDT
             My 1999 book implies UPDATE....FROM is not standard -NT - (tablizer) - (1) - May 27, 2005, 09:06:38 PM EDT
                 Probably so... - (ChrisR) - May 27, 2005, 09:57:05 PM EDT
         And you're surprised because what? -NT - (pwhysall) - May 26, 2005, 05:23:28 PM EDT
         Another SQL Puzzle - (tablizer) - (31) - May 27, 2005, 09:15:39 PM EDT
             Re: Another SQL Puzzle - (ChrisR) - (25) - May 27, 2005, 09:50:17 PM EDT
                 Hmmm. Standard? -NT - (tablizer) - (24) - May 31, 2005, 01:18:06 AM EDT
                     No such thing in SQL world - dialects everywhere -NT - (tuberculosis) - (22) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:44:10 AM EDT
                         Good point. Standard != Common_Implementation - (tablizer) - (21) - June 2, 2005, 08:41:49 PM EDT
                             Lemme guess... - (ben_tilly) - (20) - June 2, 2005, 09:24:29 PM EDT
                                 The best way to fix non-standard implementations.... - (ChrisR) - June 2, 2005, 10:27:30 PM EDT
                                 I had a look. - (static) - (13) - June 2, 2005, 11:25:00 PM EDT
                                     Fish in a barrel -NT - (ben_tilly) - June 3, 2005, 12:27:31 AM EDT
                                     Please be more specific -NT - (tablizer) - (11) - June 20, 2005, 08:55:05 PM EDT
                                         Horse corpse - meet Mr. Stick -NT - (broomberg) - (1) - June 20, 2005, 09:09:47 PM EDT
                                             IOW, guilty until proven innocent. IranWeThey - (tablizer) - June 20, 2005, 09:20:14 PM EDT
                                         Sorry, I've got real SQL work to do. -NT - (static) - (8) - June 20, 2005, 09:44:01 PM EDT
                                             SQL sucks (as a relational language) - (tablizer) - (7) - June 21, 2005, 02:18:03 AM EDT
                                                 Perhaps you need to get out of the design and... - (ChrisR) - (6) - June 21, 2005, 10:39:45 AM EDT
                                                     Some convergence perhaps - (tablizer) - (5) - June 21, 2005, 03:06:20 PM EDT
                                                         sounds like you would be happy doing MAS90 -NT - (boxley) - (2) - June 21, 2005, 03:20:32 PM EDT
                                                             Wow. That's harsh. ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1) - June 21, 2005, 04:35:39 PM EDT
                                                                 its straight forward, lucrative and he enjoys the language -NT - (boxley) - June 21, 2005, 06:03:18 PM EDT
                                                         You are writing a language IN xBase? - (broomberg) - (1) - June 21, 2005, 06:53:22 PM EDT
                                                             I am sort of pushing off parsing issues to something else -NT - (tablizer) - June 21, 2005, 08:04:39 PM EDT
                                 WRONGO! - (tablizer) - (4) - June 20, 2005, 09:16:28 PM EDT
                                     Re: WRONGO! - (JayMehaffey) - (3) - June 20, 2005, 10:19:39 PM EDT
                                         Prefix != "procedural" - (tablizer) - (2) - June 21, 2005, 02:04:44 AM EDT
                                             I wasn't talking aobut it's notation - (JayMehaffey) - (1) - June 22, 2005, 11:36:38 PM EDT
                                                 Variables can be semantic "references", not necess. storage - (tablizer) - June 23, 2005, 07:35:24 PM EDT
                     CASE is the ANSI/ISO-standard - (ChrisR) - May 31, 2005, 11:40:51 AM EDT
             Easy if you have decode - (SpiceWare) - May 27, 2005, 09:47:22 PM EDT
             Re: Another SQL Puzzle - (takicutie) - (3) - July 12, 2005, 12:07:06 AM EDT
                 hmm - decode won't work afterall - (SpiceWare) - (2) - July 12, 2005, 10:30:23 AM EDT
                     Nope, no negative in my case - (tablizer) - (1) - July 16, 2005, 01:26:43 AM EDT
                         It has been standardized. - (ChrisR) - July 16, 2005, 02:30:11 AM EDT

Yo quiero LRPD.
152 ms