|
|
Posted by Erland Sommarskog on 02/01/07 22:11
dunleav1 (jmd@dunleavyenterprises.com) writes:
> I believe we are in agreement but let me give you an example about
> what I referring to:
> sql89: select tab1.col1 from tab1,tab2 where tab1.col1=tab2.col and
> tab1.col1 >1;
> sql92: select tab1.col1 from tab1 inner join tab2 on
> tab1.col1=tab2.col2 where tab1.col1 >1;
> Is there a performance impact using one syntax over the other?
In SQL Server, no.
And I would find it difficult to justify to go through all code and
change it to use the newer syntax. (Note that the SQL-89 syntax is
still very much valid.)
However, I tend to rewrite into the newer syntax when I work with old
code, since I find the newer syntax much easier to read and work with.
> I agree it is a good idea to not use proprietary sql extensions such
> as (tab1(+) for Oracle or Mssql *=).
If you on the other hand have lots of code with *= int, there is
all reason to rewrite it. *= is deprecated in SQL 2005, and works
only in compatibility mode 80.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|