Talk:Correlated subquery

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Databases (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases articles

Untitled[edit]

empnum 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]