Is there any use for defining additional entity types in a SOQL FROM clause?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
Here's a somewhat odd SOQL query from the question query user and profile:
select user.id, user.Email,user.FirstName,user.LastName,user.profile.name,user.Username,user.IsActive
from user, user.profile
Note that the FROM clause includes both user and user.profile.
Here is a simpler example to follow the Contact to Account relationship:
select Id, Name, Account.Name from Contact, Contact.Account
The same query with the relationship join can be performed with:
Select Id, Name, Account.Name From Contact
Is there any purpose to supporting additional SObject types in the from clause, or is it vestigial?
Is is outlined as supported syntax in SOQL.
SELECT fieldList [subquery][...]
[TYPEOF typeOfField whenExpression[...] elseExpression END][...]
FROM objectType[,...]
[USING SCOPE filterScope]
Out of interest, if you don't use a valid sObject relationship on the additional sObject types you get the following message:
INVALID_TYPE:
Name, Account.Name From Contact, Account
^
ERROR at Row:1:Column:45
A driving SObject type has already been set, all other entity types in the FROM clause must
be relationships to the initial object. The driving object is Contact.
While doing some checking I found this old dev forum question that indicated it was added to the syntax in Winter '15. Or at least documented then. - Missing doc for new SOQL multiple object SELECT?
soql
asked yesterday
Daniel BallingerDaniel Ballinger
74.5k15155407
add a comment |
Here's a somewhat odd SOQL query from the question query user and profile:
select user.id, user.Email,user.FirstName,user.LastName,user.profile.name,user.Username,user.IsActive
from user, user.profile
Note that the FROM clause includes both user and user.profile.
Here is a simpler example to follow the Contact to Account relationship:
select Id, Name, Account.Name from Contact, Contact.Account
The same query with the relationship join can be performed with:
Select Id, Name, Account.Name From Contact
Is there any purpose to supporting additional SObject types in the from clause, or is it vestigial?
Is is outlined as supported syntax in SOQL.
SELECT fieldList [subquery][...]
[TYPEOF typeOfField whenExpression[...] elseExpression END][...]
FROM objectType[,...]
[USING SCOPE filterScope]
Out of interest, if you don't use a valid sObject relationship on the additional sObject types you get the following message:
INVALID_TYPE:
Name, Account.Name From Contact, Account
^
ERROR at Row:1:Column:45
A driving SObject type has already been set, all other entity types in the FROM clause must
be relationships to the initial object. The driving object is Contact.
While doing some checking I found this old dev forum question that indicated it was added to the syntax in Winter '15. Or at least documented then. - Missing doc for new SOQL multiple object SELECT?
soql
asked yesterday
Daniel BallingerDaniel Ballinger
74.5k15155407
Ah, I finally know how this strange syntax can actually be used. No idea on what it actually does though. Maybe it helps with choosing indices to use, or helps disambiguate multiple references to the same related SObject?
– Derek F
yesterday
@DerekF Currently is seems redundant. Like it was maybe a left over from the SQL query origins. I'm still not sure what it would help disambiguate. Maybe for polymorphic relationships?
– Daniel Ballinger
yesterday
add a comment |
Here's a somewhat odd SOQL query from the question query user and profile:
select user.id, user.Email,user.FirstName,user.LastName,user.profile.name,user.Username,user.IsActive
from user, user.profile
Note that the FROM clause includes both user and user.profile.
Here is a simpler example to follow the Contact to Account relationship:
select Id, Name, Account.Name from Contact, Contact.Account
The same query with the relationship join can be performed with:
Select Id, Name, Account.Name From Contact
Is there any purpose to supporting additional SObject types in the from clause, or is it vestigial?
Is is outlined as supported syntax in SOQL.
SELECT fieldList [subquery][...]
[TYPEOF typeOfField whenExpression[...] elseExpression END][...]
FROM objectType[,...]
[USING SCOPE filterScope]
Out of interest, if you don't use a valid sObject relationship on the additional sObject types you get the following message:
INVALID_TYPE:
Name, Account.Name From Contact, Account
^
ERROR at Row:1:Column:45
A driving SObject type has already been set, all other entity types in the FROM clause must
be relationships to the initial object. The driving object is Contact.
While doing some checking I found this old dev forum question that indicated it was added to the syntax in Winter '15. Or at least documented then. - Missing doc for new SOQL multiple object SELECT?
soql
asked yesterday
Daniel BallingerDaniel Ballinger
74.5k15155407
Here's a somewhat odd SOQL query from the question query user and profile:
select user.id, user.Email,user.FirstName,user.LastName,user.profile.name,user.Username,user.IsActive
from user, user.profile
Note that the FROM clause includes both user and user.profile.
Here is a simpler example to follow the Contact to Account relationship:
select Id, Name, Account.Name from Contact, Contact.Account
The same query with the relationship join can be performed with:
Select Id, Name, Account.Name From Contact
Is there any purpose to supporting additional SObject types in the from clause, or is it vestigial?
Is is outlined as supported syntax in SOQL.
SELECT fieldList [subquery][...]
[TYPEOF typeOfField whenExpression[...] elseExpression END][...]
FROM objectType[,...]
[USING SCOPE filterScope]
Out of interest, if you don't use a valid sObject relationship on the additional sObject types you get the following message:
INVALID_TYPE:
Name, Account.Name From Contact, Account
^
ERROR at Row:1:Column:45
A driving SObject type has already been set, all other entity types in the FROM clause must
be relationships to the initial object. The driving object is Contact.
While doing some checking I found this old dev forum question that indicated it was added to the syntax in Winter '15. Or at least documented then. - Missing doc for new SOQL multiple object SELECT?
soql
soql
asked yesterday
Daniel BallingerDaniel Ballinger
74.5k15155407
asked yesterday
Daniel BallingerDaniel Ballinger
74.5k15155407
asked yesterday
Daniel BallingerDaniel Ballinger
74.5k15155407
asked yesterday
Daniel BallingerDaniel Ballinger
74.5k15155407
asked yesterday
Daniel BallingerDaniel Ballinger
74.5k15155407
74.5k15155407
Ah, I finally know how this strange syntax can actually be used. No idea on what it actually does though. Maybe it helps with choosing indices to use, or helps disambiguate multiple references to the same related SObject?
– Derek F
yesterday
@DerekF Currently is seems redundant. Like it was maybe a left over from the SQL query origins. I'm still not sure what it would help disambiguate. Maybe for polymorphic relationships?
– Daniel Ballinger
yesterday
add a comment |
Ah, I finally know how this strange syntax can actually be used. No idea on what it actually does though. Maybe it helps with choosing indices to use, or helps disambiguate multiple references to the same related SObject?
– Derek F
yesterday
@DerekF Currently is seems redundant. Like it was maybe a left over from the SQL query origins. I'm still not sure what it would help disambiguate. Maybe for polymorphic relationships?
– Daniel Ballinger
yesterday
Ah, I finally know how this strange syntax can actually be used. No idea on what it actually does though. Maybe it helps with choosing indices to use, or helps disambiguate multiple references to the same related SObject?
– Derek F
yesterday
Ah, I finally know how this strange syntax can actually be used. No idea on what it actually does though. Maybe it helps with choosing indices to use, or helps disambiguate multiple references to the same related SObject?
– Derek F
yesterday
@DerekF Currently is seems redundant. Like it was maybe a left over from the SQL query origins. I'm still not sure what it would help disambiguate. Maybe for polymorphic relationships?
– Daniel Ballinger
yesterday
@DerekF Currently is seems redundant. Like it was maybe a left over from the SQL query origins. I'm still not sure what it would help disambiguate. Maybe for polymorphic relationships?
– Daniel Ballinger
yesterday
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
One possible use is to use is to combine it with the Alias notation for the related sObjects.
E.g.
select c.Id, c.Name, ca.Name, art.Name
from Contact c, Contact.Account ca, Contact.Account.RecordType art
If you wanted to query many fields from the related sObject then you could save a significant number of characters if you are running up against the 20,000 character limit.
answered yesterday
Daniel BallingerDaniel Ballinger
74.5k15155407
1
Even if you don't care about the query limit, it can be nice to save all that typing!
– Adrian Larson♦
11 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "459"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsalesforce.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f257078%2fis-there-any-use-for-defining-additional-entity-types-in-a-soql-from-clause%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
One possible use is to use is to combine it with the Alias notation for the related sObjects.
E.g.
select c.Id, c.Name, ca.Name, art.Name
from Contact c, Contact.Account ca, Contact.Account.RecordType art
If you wanted to query many fields from the related sObject then you could save a significant number of characters if you are running up against the 20,000 character limit.
answered yesterday
Daniel BallingerDaniel Ballinger
74.5k15155407
1
Even if you don't care about the query limit, it can be nice to save all that typing!
– Adrian Larson♦
11 hours ago
add a comment |
One possible use is to use is to combine it with the Alias notation for the related sObjects.
E.g.
select c.Id, c.Name, ca.Name, art.Name
from Contact c, Contact.Account ca, Contact.Account.RecordType art
If you wanted to query many fields from the related sObject then you could save a significant number of characters if you are running up against the 20,000 character limit.
answered yesterday
Daniel BallingerDaniel Ballinger
74.5k15155407
1
Even if you don't care about the query limit, it can be nice to save all that typing!
– Adrian Larson♦
11 hours ago
add a comment |
One possible use is to use is to combine it with the Alias notation for the related sObjects.
E.g.
select c.Id, c.Name, ca.Name, art.Name
from Contact c, Contact.Account ca, Contact.Account.RecordType art
If you wanted to query many fields from the related sObject then you could save a significant number of characters if you are running up against the 20,000 character limit.
answered yesterday
Daniel BallingerDaniel Ballinger
74.5k15155407
One possible use is to use is to combine it with the Alias notation for the related sObjects.
E.g.
select c.Id, c.Name, ca.Name, art.Name
from Contact c, Contact.Account ca, Contact.Account.RecordType art
If you wanted to query many fields from the related sObject then you could save a significant number of characters if you are running up against the 20,000 character limit.
answered yesterday
Daniel BallingerDaniel Ballinger
74.5k15155407
answered yesterday
Daniel BallingerDaniel Ballinger
74.5k15155407
answered yesterday
Daniel BallingerDaniel Ballinger
74.5k15155407
answered yesterday
Daniel BallingerDaniel Ballinger
74.5k15155407
74.5k15155407
1
Even if you don't care about the query limit, it can be nice to save all that typing!
– Adrian Larson♦
11 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Even if you don't care about the query limit, it can be nice to save all that typing!
– Adrian Larson♦
11 hours ago
1
1
Even if you don't care about the query limit, it can be nice to save all that typing!
– Adrian Larson♦
11 hours ago
Even if you don't care about the query limit, it can be nice to save all that typing!
– Adrian Larson♦
11 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Salesforce Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsalesforce.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f257078%2fis-there-any-use-for-defining-additional-entity-types-in-a-soql-from-clause%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Ah, I finally know how this strange syntax can actually be used. No idea on what it actually does though. Maybe it helps with choosing indices to use, or helps disambiguate multiple references to the same related SObject?
– Derek F
yesterday
@DerekF Currently is seems redundant. Like it was maybe a left over from the SQL query origins. I'm still not sure what it would help disambiguate. Maybe for polymorphic relationships?
– Daniel Ballinger
yesterday