Re: Speaking of New Features

True, that would work.  It's just ugly though...in my opinion anyway.  :)

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Daniel Fink <daniel.fink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  In the absence of actual implementation, comments are your friend. Why not
> use comments to indicate which column you are referencing? Granted it does
> not totally address the situation of specifying a limited number of columns
> or and independent order, but it would help when inserting 100 columns or
> so.
>
> Pre-column
> DEMO@dwf10gr2> insert into t2
>   2  values ( /* c1 */ 12,
>   3           /* c2 */ 42
>   4         )
>   5  /
>
> 1 row created.
>
> Post-column
> DEMO@dwf10gr2> insert into t2
>   2  values ( 12,  -- c1
>   3           42   -- c2
>   4*        )
> DEMO@dwf10gr2> /
>
> 1 row created.
>
> Regards,
> Daniel Fink
>
> --
> Daniel Fink
>
> OptimalDBA    http://www.optimaldba.com
> Oracle Blog   http://optimaldba.blogspot.com
>
> Lost Data?    http://www.ora600.be/
>
>
>
>
>
> chet justice wrote:
>
> I think I would require the use of the correct column name instead of any
>> type of positional col-n style labeling.
>
>
>  Agreed.   That was just an example, those are the actual column names.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Powell, Mark D <mark.powell@xxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>>  Well, the suggested syntax below would make matching up a long column
>> list to the provided values/variables a lot easier and would likely help
>> prevent listing 100 columns to be inserted but only including 99 variables
>> in the values list.  I think I would require the use of the correct column
>> name instead of any type of positional col-n style labeling.
>>
>> -- Mark D Powell --
>> Phone (313) 592-5148
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>> *From:* oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
>> oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Jared Still
>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 10, 2009 12:04 PM
>> *To:* chet.justice@xxxxxxxxx
>> *Cc:* oracle-l
>> *Subject:* Re: Speaking of New Features
>>
>>   Very Perlish.
>>   I like it.  :)
>>
>> Jared Still
>> Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:37 PM, chet justice <chet.justice@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>
>>> Any thoughts on the "new" syntax for INSERT statements below?
>>>
>>> INSERT INTO my_table
>>>   ( id => seq.nexval,
>>>     create_date => SYSDATE,
>>>     update_date => SYSDATE,
>>>     col1 => 'A',
>>>     col2 => 'SOMETHING',
>>>     col3 => 'SOMETHING',
>>>     col4 => 'SOMETHING',
>>>     col5 => 'SOMETHING',
>>>     col6 => 'SOMETHING',
>>>     col7 => 'SOMETHING',
>>>     col8 => 'SOMETHING',
>>>     col9 => 'SOMETHING',
>>>     col10 => 'SOMETHING',
>>>     col11 => 'SOMETHING',
>>>     col12 => 'SOMETHING',
>>>     col13 => 'SOMETHING',
>>>     col14 => 'SOMETHING' );
>>>
>>> Thought of one day while trying to clean up (make human readable) someone
>>> else's code.  I would either get too many values or not enough.  After
>>> copying the INSERT columns and subsequent VALUES clause into an Excel
>>> spreadsheet to compare them side by side, I thought, hey, what about named
>>> notation?
>>>
>>> Anyway, I created the "Idea" on Oracle Mix 
>>> here<https://mix.oracle.com/ideas/94278-position-insert-syntax>if you are 
>>> inclined to, one way or another, to vote.
>>>
>>> chet
>>>
>>> --
>>> chet justice
>>> www.oraclenerd.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> chet justice
> www.oraclenerd.com
>
>
>


-- 
chet justice
www.oraclenerd.com

Other related posts: