Talk:Correlated subquery
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editempnum isn't a very descriptive column name so I'm going to change empnum to employee_number —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicapowell39 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to replace the NATURAL JOINs with INNER JOINs in the examples. I find the Natural Joins are less used and understood and therefore confusing. 50.84.88.230 (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, calling a correlated subquery "categorically inefficient", compared to an inline view crunching an entire table, is very inaccurate. If the outer query is in any way bounded, and pulls a subset of rows, using a correlation is preferable to crunching down an entire table within a subquery. In truth, in anything but the smallest of tables a correlation can be ideal. (Based on my 30+ years of SQL, but your experience may vary). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.203.67 (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)