Comments on: When ANSI SQL Join Syntax Does Not Work in Oracle

By: Brian Tkatch

Brian Tkatch — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:26:38 +0000

I personally prefer Oracle’s was because it’s easy to read, and i personally find the ANSI syntax to be very hard to follow especially once it starts to nest.

By: Eddie Awad

Eddie Awad — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:54:25 +0000

Juanky, you meant writng SQL not PL/SQL, right? Performance should be the same unless proven otherwise. I personally prefer ANSI SQL because it’s easier to read.

By: Juanky

Juanky — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:18:53 +0000

Question? What syntax is more efficient for writing PLSQL… ANSI or the old Oracle way?? When I say efficient is performance, and maintainability wise..
Thanks

By: Sanjay

Sanjay — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:41:01 +0000

Take a look at the Query itself… putting a (+) on the Left Side does not mean a LEFT OUTER JOIN as you have written… i mean for example in the old way if we put the (+) on RIGHT side that actually should interprete as LEFT OUTER JOIN keeping the Tables in the same sqquence… so please check the Query itself… sould work… simple stuff!

By: Paul Hartness

Paul Hartness — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:24:54 +0000

I’m experiencing this problem and it erks me that I have to switch my queries from ANSI to non-ANSI. However it erks me even more that I have to deal with a table with over 300 columns!!! I find it staggering that any professional organisation that relies on such a database for mission critical operations involving billions for euros can allow such a thing to happen.

By: jabber2

jabber2 — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:05:46 +0000

Nice looking site providing detailled information about sql syntax: http://www.sqlexikon.de have a look (ooch, this site is german)

By: Mike Studholme

Mike Studholme — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:31:24 +0000

I just had this problem reported to me and as I was provided nice little(ish) test case I was able to take an export of the schema involved and try it on Oracle 11g.

I’m happy to say that the query that was failing in Oracle 10.2.0.3.0 interim patch 12 works fine in Oracle 11.1.0.6.0.

I haven’t found the bit of documentation that stated if the 1050 limit has been increased but I suspect this it what has changed.

I suspect also that the Oracle pseudo columns are included in the limit as the number of columns in the query that was failing was only just over 1000.

By: Eddie Awad

Eddie Awad — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:28:59 +0000

Thanks for pointing out another ANSI join error Laurent. Too bad there is no corresponding FULL OUTER JOIN syntax in the “good old” Oracle join syntax, so we can compare. I wonder if Oracle DB 11g had these bugs fixed.

By: Laurent Schneider

Laurent Schneider — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:57:51 +0000

well, to make sense the query condition should contain

and u1.owner=’FOO’ and u2.owner=’BAR’

but the bug is the same… not found on metalink yet

By: Laurent Schneider

Laurent Schneider — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:54:47 +0000

what about this…

select u1.object_name, u1.object_type, u2.object_type, u2.object_type
from all_objects u1 full outer join all_objects u2 on
(u1.object_name=u2.object_name);

from all_objects u1 full outer join all_objects u2 on
*
ERROR at line 2:
ORA-00904: “XML_SCHEMA_NAME_PRESENT”.”IS_SCHEMA_PRESENT”: invalid identifier