By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
434,849 Members | 2,361 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 434,849 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Alternatives for "OUTER JOIN"

P: n/a
Hello everybody,

I have the following question.

As a join clause on Oracle we use " table1.field1 = table2.field1 (+) "
On SQL Server we use " table1.field1 *= table2.field1 "
Does DB2 have the same type of operator, without using the OUTER JOIN
syntax ?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks in advance,

Martin Stentrop
Nov 12 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
3 Replies


P: n/a
Martin wrote:
Hello everybody,

I have the following question.

As a join clause on Oracle we use " table1.field1 = table2.field1 (+) "
On SQL Server we use " table1.field1 *= table2.field1 "
Are you using this in the WHERE clause?
Does DB2 have the same type of operator, without using the OUTER JOIN
syntax ?


You could simply do this:

( table1.field1 = table2.field1 OR
table1.field1 IS NULL )

This, as the OUTER JOIN, would be standard SQL.

--
Knut Stolze
Information Integration
IBM Germany / University of Jena
Nov 12 '05 #2

P: n/a
>> Does DB2 have the same type of operator, without using the OUTER
JOIN syntax ? <<

Never use the extended equality comparisons; they do not work and are
very weak. Here is how OUTER JOINs work in SQL-92. Assume you are
given:

Table1 Table2
a b a c
====== ======
1 w 1 r
2 x 2 s
3 y 3 t
4 z

and the outer join expression:

Table1
LEFT OUTER JOIN
Table2
ON Table1.a = Table2.a <== join condition
AND Table2.c = 't'; <== single table condition

We call Table1 the "preserved table" and Table2 the "unpreserved
table" in the query. What I am going to give you is a little
different, but equivalent to the ANSI/ISO standards.

1) We build the CROSS JOIN of the two tables. Scan each row in the
result set.

2) If the predicate tests TRUE for that row, then you keep it. You
also remove all rows derived from it from the CROSS JOIN

3) If the predicate tests FALSE or UNKNOWN for that row, then keep the
columns from the preserved table, convert all the columns from the
unpreserved table to NULLs and remove the duplicates.

So let us execute this by hand:

Let @ = passed the first predicate
Let * = passed the second predicate

Table1 CROSS JOIN Table2
a b a c
=========================
1 w 1 r @
1 w 2 s
1 w 3 t *
2 x 1 r
2 x 2 s @
2 x 3 t *
3 y 1 r
3 y 2 s
3 y 3 t @* <== the TRUE set
4 z 1 r
4 z 2 s
4 z 3 t *

Table1 LEFT OUTER JOIN Table2
a b a c
=========================
3 y 3 t <= only TRUE row
-----------------------
1 w NULL NULL Sets of duplicates
1 w NULL NULL
1 w NULL NULL
-----------------------
2 x NULL NULL
2 x NULL NULL
2 x NULL NULL
3 y NULL NULL <== derived from the TRUE set - Remove
3 y NULL NULL
-----------------------
4 z NULL NULL
4 z NULL NULL
4 z NULL NULL

the final results:

Table1 LEFT OUTER JOIN Table2
a b a c
=========================
1 w NULL NULL
2 x NULL NULL
3 y 3 t
4 z NULL NULL

The basic rule is that every row in the preserved table is represented
in the results in at least one result row.

There are limitations and very serious problems with the extended
equality version of an outer join used in some diseased mutant
products. Consider the two Chris Date tables

Suppliers SupParts
supno supno partno qty
========= ==============
S1 S1 P1 100
S2 S1 P2 250
S3 S2 P1 100
S2 P2 250

and let's do an extended equality outer join like this:

SELECT *
FROM Supplier, SupParts
WHERE Supplier.supno *= SupParts.supno
AND qty < 200;

If I do the outer first, I get:

Suppliers LOJ SupParts
supno supno partno qty
=======================
S1 S1 P1 100
S1 S1 P2 250
S2 S2 P1 100
S2 S2 P2 250
S3 NULL NULL NULL

Then I apply the (qty < 200) predicate and get

Suppliers LOJ SupParts
supno supno partno qty
===================
S1 S1 P1 100
S2 S2 P1 100

Doing it in the opposite order

Suppliers LOJ SupParts
supno supno partno qty
===================
S1 S1 P1 100
S2 S2 P1 100
S3 NULL NULL NULL

Sybase does it one way, Oracle does it the other and Centura (nee
Gupta) lets you pick which one -- the worst of both non-standard
worlds! In SQL-92, you have a choice and can force the order of
execution. Either do the predicates after the join ...

SELECT *
FROM Supplier
LEFT OUTER JOIN
SupParts
ON Supplier.supno = SupParts.supno
WHERE qty < 200;

... or do it in the joining:

SELECT *
FROM Supplier
LEFT OUTER JOIN
SupParts
ON Supplier.supno = SupParts.supno
AND qty < 200;

Another problem is that you cannot show the same table as preserved
and unpreserved in the extended equality version, but it is easy in
SQL-92. For example to find the students who have taken Math 101 and
might have taken Math 102:

SELECT C1.student, C1.math, C2.math
FROM (SELECT * FROM Courses WHERE math = 101) AS C1
LEFT OUTER JOIN
(SELECT * FROM Courses WHERE math = 102) AS C2
ON C1.student = C2.student;
Nov 12 '05 #3

P: n/a
Thank you for the info ..

[posted and mailed]

jc*******@earthlink.net (--CELKO--) wrote in
news:18**************************@posting.google.c om:
Does DB2 have the same type of operator, without using the OUTER

JOIN syntax ? <<

Never use the extended equality comparisons; they do not work and are
very weak.

Nov 12 '05 #4

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.