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;
}







3















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?










share|improve this question























  • 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
    2 hours ago











  • @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
    2 hours ago


















3















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?










share|improve this question























  • 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
    2 hours ago











  • @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
    2 hours ago














3












3








3








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?










share|improve this question














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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 2 hours ago









Daniel BallingerDaniel Ballinger

74.4k15155406




74.4k15155406













  • 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
    2 hours ago











  • @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
    2 hours ago



















  • 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
    2 hours ago











  • @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
    2 hours ago

















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
2 hours ago





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
2 hours ago













@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
2 hours ago





@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
2 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2














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.






share|improve this answer
























    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
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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









    2














    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.






    share|improve this answer




























      2














      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.






      share|improve this answer


























        2












        2








        2







        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.






        share|improve this answer













        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.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 2 hours ago









        Daniel BallingerDaniel Ballinger

        74.4k15155406




        74.4k15155406






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Liste der Baudenkmale in Friedland (Mecklenburg)

            Single-Malt-Whisky

            Czorneboh