<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Venn Diagrams explain SQL Joins Perfectly</title>
	<atom:link href="http://programmer.brettveenstra.com/2007/10/12/venn-diagrams-explain-sql-joins-perfectly/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://programmer.brettveenstra.com/2007/10/12/venn-diagrams-explain-sql-joins-perfectly/</link>
	<description>One Programmer, on the Journey</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:16:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: mikhael</title>
		<link>http://programmer.brettveenstra.com/2007/10/12/venn-diagrams-explain-sql-joins-perfectly/comment-page-1/#comment-1288</link>
		<dc:creator>mikhael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:40:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://journeymantomaster.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/venn-diagrams-explain-sql-joins-perfectly/#comment-1288</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;That&#039;s one way to get at what&#039;s going on, but if you loose focus on your original sets, the original digram has failed to describe your JOIN and you have to come up with another. So I guess &quot;perfect&quot; is not the word I would choose.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If two tables are in a one-to-one relationship with each other, the original two-circle diagrams happily describe a given join.  It&#039;s when you introduce 1-to-many relationships that we are forced to create a new set that neither of the original circles represent even partially.  In this scenario we are not simply identifying singular objects that share a given characteristic, we are creating new objects/records that fit our description that did not exist previously.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;In other words, when we say &quot;Give me the LEFT OUTER JOIN&quot; between two tables that have a one-to-many relationship, we are saying &quot;The Records from the LEFT table are not good enough to satisfy what I want.  The records in the Right table are not what I want either.  Instead give me something completely different based on these Left and Right components.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s one way to get at what&#8217;s going on, but if you loose focus on your original sets, the original digram has failed to describe your JOIN and you have to come up with another. So I guess &#8220;perfect&#8221; is not the word I would choose.</p>

<p>If two tables are in a one-to-one relationship with each other, the original two-circle diagrams happily describe a given join.  It&#8217;s when you introduce 1-to-many relationships that we are forced to create a new set that neither of the original circles represent even partially.  In this scenario we are not simply identifying singular objects that share a given characteristic, we are creating new objects/records that fit our description that did not exist previously.</p>

<p>In other words, when we say &#8220;Give me the LEFT OUTER JOIN&#8221; between two tables that have a one-to-many relationship, we are saying &#8220;The Records from the LEFT table are not good enough to satisfy what I want.  The records in the Right table are not what I want either.  Instead give me something completely different based on these Left and Right components.&#8221;</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

