John Heitmann writes:
> Thanks for the quick response.
>
> > > select t1.*, t2.name from t1, t2 where t2.id=t2_id;
> >
> > The above is actually expected behaviour, as you are not doing a join
> > at all, but a full Cartesian product.
>
> That t2_id is actually from t1. Sorry for the confusing naming. Here
> is a more verbose, but identical statement:
>
> select t1.*, t2.name from t1, t2 where t2.id=t1.t2_id;
>
> Since there is a join condition that works across both tables is this
> still considered a cartesian product? I did a quick sanity check and
> the number of rows returned from the problem statement equals the number
> of rows in t1, rather than t1*t2. Even if it was, I don't see why
> there is indeterminism in the return values for columns in the result of
> a cartesian product.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
You are right !
This definitely looks like a bug and we shall investigate it further.
--
Regards,
__ ___ ___ ____ __
/ |/ /_ __/ __/ __ \/ / Mr. Sinisa Milivojevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
/ /|_/ / // /\ \/ /_/ / /__ MySQL AB, Fulltime Developer
/_/ /_/\_, /___/\___\_\___/ Larnaca, Cyprus
<___/ www.mysql.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
