Completely nothing is wrong with it! That's not what I'm arguing with. I'm challenging the statement in the Conclusion section:
> Arriving at query #2 to get the combined results was the intuitive way of thinking through the problem, and something that someone with intermediate or advanced SQL skills could come up with.
The issue in question is simple. It's a very good lecture for people early in their SQL journey. It would be a superb read if the author had dug into the details why it's slow.
But advanced engineers should know that LEFT JOINing 6+ tables will be huge. I disagree it's a mistake an experienced person would do.
> Arriving at query #2 to get the combined results was the intuitive way of thinking through the problem, and something that someone with intermediate or advanced SQL skills could come up with.
The issue in question is simple. It's a very good lecture for people early in their SQL journey. It would be a superb read if the author had dug into the details why it's slow.
But advanced engineers should know that LEFT JOINing 6+ tables will be huge. I disagree it's a mistake an experienced person would do.