1

Just keeping it simple here, so this is not specific to any computer language. But suppose I'm joining 2 tables, A and B. The relationship between the 2 tables is 1:many. If I use some type of code that performs an inner join between A and B, the result, let's call this table C, will yield a number of rows equal to the Cartesian product of A and B, given that we've filtered out what doesn't match between A and B on the criteria of the inner join.

In my work environment, people use the term "exploded" to describe the output shown in C, since the output table is typically much larger than A or B. I don't like this term "exploded." I was wondering if anyone had another term that more appropriately implies that table C is essentially table A enlarged with the addition of data from table B.

KristiP
  • 11
  • 3
  • 4
    Well, by definition it's not the cartesian product since there's an inner join. – The Impaler Jan 31 '19 at 17:59
  • 2
    In general, this is a "result set". More specifically, a decade ago we used to call this in reference to the detailed table (`B` in this case): we called it "Extended B Table"; but this was just an informal term in between us. – The Impaler Jan 31 '19 at 18:03
  • If you want to refer the the intermediate result of the join, I would just refer to it as the "join result", or the "join of A and B". As TheImpaler said, "cartesian product" already has a meaning in rdbms lingo, and almost never refers to directly related data. _Really, there is usually not a need to refer to the intermediate result outside of discussing sql (as opposed to any computer language), you really should be talking about what the selected fields (final results of the whole query) represent._ – Uueerdo Jan 31 '19 at 18:43
  • (Missed the edit deadline...) In "any computer language" other than sql, you really should be talking about what the selected fields (final results of the whole query) represent. – Uueerdo Jan 31 '19 at 18:49

0 Answers0