Re: Speaking of New Features
- From: Jared Still <jkstill@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: chet.justice@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:07:56 -0700
Not just ugly, it's harder to read.
Specifying name/value pairs in INSERT statements would
be a huge improvement.
Jared Still
Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:45 AM, chet justice <chet.justice@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> 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:
