On 3/31/21 6:54 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> If using the -> notation, you would only need to manually
>> inspect the tables involved in the remaining JOINs;
>> since you could be confident all uses of -> cannot affect cardinality.
>>
>> I think this would be a win also for an expert SQL consultant working
>> with a new complex data model never seen before.
>>
>>
> I did not feel comfortable when I read about this proprietary extension of
> SQL. I can accept and it can be nice to support ANSI/SQL object's
> referentions, but implementing own syntax for JOIN looks too strange. I
> don't see too strong benefit in inventing new syntax and increasing the
> complexity and possible disorientation of users about correct syntax. Some
> users didn't adopt a difference between old joins and modern joins, and you
> are inventing a third syntax.
I'm with you on this: let's do it the Standard way, or not do it at all.
--
Vik Fearing
