Timeline for LEFT JOIN vs. LEFT OUTER JOIN in SQL Server
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 5, 2023 at 22:22 | history | edited | philipxy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
removed meta & social content, improved language & format
|
| Sep 5, 2023 at 18:04 | history | edited | bfontaine | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
this is not a quote
|
| Mar 24, 2023 at 22:23 | history | edited | daveloyall | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Update link because the original post is now at a new URL
|
| Feb 3, 2023 at 10:49 | comment | added | philipxy | @ManuelJordan They only "seem similar" because the descriptions here are so vague & poor. But that should be clear if you take the descriptions here and try to use them to calculate example results of operator calls ... you can't, too vague & poor. Anyway everything after the first sentence is irrelevant to the question post. Also the blog at the link at the end is a mess & the author admits the blog is confused & not useful in their own comments on their blog. Venn diagrams are not useful for describing joins. | |
| Sep 7, 2020 at 10:29 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Sep 7, 2020 at 14:35 | |||||
| Oct 12, 2019 at 14:51 | comment | added | Manuel Jordan |
@sactiw consider to add a special note in your valuable answer about the difference between Cross Join and Full Outer Join ... in some way seems similar.
|
|
| Jul 13, 2016 at 15:34 | comment | added | sactiw | @RhysO no, CROSS JOIN is a Cartesian product i.e. CROSS JOIN of a table, having n rows, with a table, having m rows, will always give (n*m) rows while FULL OUTER JOIN of a table, having n rows, with a table, having m rows, will give at max (n+m) rows | |
| May 14, 2014 at 9:38 | history | edited | Srini V | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 10 characters in body
|
| Dec 27, 2012 at 19:27 | comment | added | ssh | Very good answer. It will be clearer if you say "LEFT OUTER JOIN - fetches all data from the left table with matching data from right, if preset." for 2.1 (and similar change for 2.2) | |
| Jul 23, 2012 at 13:18 | history | suggested | TazGPL | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
improved formatting
|
| Jul 23, 2012 at 13:16 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Jul 23, 2012 at 13:18 | |||||
| S Apr 30, 2012 at 19:02 | history | suggested | Benjamin Cutler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Reword explanation in all positive terms so it's more consistant with the syntax of SQL, and fix English ("doesn't fetches data" doesn't make sense).
|
| Apr 30, 2012 at 15:57 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 30, 2012 at 19:02 | |||||
| Nov 11, 2011 at 11:16 | history | edited | sactiw | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
The explanation of LEFT OUTER JOIN and RIGHT OUTER JOIN was misleading in termof what data they fetch
|
| Jun 10, 2011 at 10:03 | history | edited | sactiw | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
corrected the formation of sentence so that it makes better sense
|
| Apr 28, 2011 at 15:24 | history | edited | sactiw | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
adding answer to the question to the top (i.e. before the explanation)
|
| Apr 26, 2011 at 13:19 | history | edited | sactiw | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
improved formatting, heading and presentation
|
| Dec 9, 2010 at 18:15 | history | edited | sactiw | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added info about the cross join
|
| Dec 9, 2010 at 18:05 | history | answered | sactiw | CC BY-SA 2.5 |