Skip to content

Conversation

@dfabulich
Copy link
Collaborator

The code was doing a left join (aka a left outer join) to gameRatingsSandbox0_mv unless $browse mode is enabled and you're using one of the specified sort orders, in which case it does a simple join (an inner join).

I wrote this code in PR #270, specifically in 3bd2c7a. But… why did I write that? Why didn't I just do an inner join in all cases?

To be quite honest, I can't remember. I bet the issue was that gameRatingsSandbox0_mv didn't have exactly as many rows as the games table. (And I bet I was misusing $browse … it probably should have been !$term.)

I believe that gameRatingsSandbox0_mv will always have a row for every game in the games table, now that we've merged #1266, and so it should be safe to do an inner join in all cases.

The code was doing a `left join` (aka a `left outer join`) to `gameRatingsSandbox0_mv` unless `$browse` mode is enabled and you're using one of the specified sort orders, in which case it does a simple `join` (an `inner join`).

I wrote this code in PR #270, specifically in 3bd2c7a. But… why did I write that? Why didn't I just do an inner join in all cases?

To be quite honest, I can't remember. I bet the issue was that `gameRatingsSandbox0_mv` didn't have exactly as many rows as the `games` table. (And I bet I was misusing `$browse` … it probably should have been `!$term`.)

I believe that `gameRatingsSandbox0_mv` will always have a row for every game in the games table, now that we've merged #1266, and so it should be safe to do an inner join in all cases.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants