>Surely the column name has to exist in both tables?
Indeed.
>Graham is using page.category_id and category.id, content.page_id and
page.id
His column specs weren't complete. If you're right on this, though...
>, so I think ON (as I posted earlier) is the only way to do this.
...you're right on that too.
PB
Chris Sansom wrote:
At 23:17 -0700 23/5/06, Graham Anderson wrote:
Are there any advantages to converting this 'working' query below to
use INNER JOIN ?
If so, what would the correct syntax be ?
SELECT category.name, page.name, content.title, content.body
FROM category, page, content
WHERE content.page_id = page.id
AND page.category_id = category.id
AND category.id =1
ORDER BY content.order_id ASC
LIMIT 0 , 30
And at 11:52 -0500 24/5/06, Peter Brawley wrote:
Explicit INNER JOINs are easier to read, easier to debug, and since
5.0.12 always preferable in MySQL for reasons given at
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/join.html (look for '5.0.12').
SELECT category.name, page.name, content.title, content.body
FROM category
INNER JOIN content USING (category_id)
INNER JOIN page USING (page_id)
WHERE category.id = 1
ORDER BY content.order_id ASC
LIMIT 0 , 30
Actually, although I've never used the USING clause - I just looked it
up - I don't think this would work. Surely the column name has to
exist in both tables? Graham is using page.category_id and
category.id, content.page_id and page.id, so I think ON (as I posted
earlier) is the only way to do this.
Willing to be corrected though. :-)
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.1/347 - Release Date: 5/24/2006
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
