>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
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
>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
many thanks Chris :)
g
On May 24, 2006, at 1:19 AM, 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 ?
Many thanks
SELECT category.name, page.na
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 ?
Many thanks
SELECT category.name, page.name, content.title, content.body
FROM category, page, content
WHERE content.pa
Are there any advantages to converting this 'working' query below to
use INNER JOIN ?
If so, what would the correct syntax be ?
Many thanks
SELECT category.name, page.name, content.title, content.body
FROM category, page, content
WHERE content.page_id = page.id
AND page.category_id = category
