What about SQL Server?

Looks like SQL Server supports them too, with no difference in the syntax: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190690(v=sql.105).aspx

I looks to broke the old way to crossjoin

 ->join('tableA'', tableA.column1', '=', 'tableB.column2', 'cross')

The output query of this, after upgrade from 5.2.20 to 5.2.29 doesn't include the ON statement, it broke the query.

Also the new crossjoin syntax doesn't support an ON statement.

As i see the changes from this patch

        // Cross joins generate a cartesian product between the first table and the joined
        // table. Since they don't expect any "on" clauses to perform the join, we just
        // just append the SQL statement and jump to the next iteration of this loop.
        if ($type === 'cross') {
            $sql[] = "cross join $table";

            continue;
        }

@GrahamCampbell I recommend to add ON statement support to cross join type. because I have used cross join ON statement with previous latest of Laravel and now it return query without ON statement.

5.2.x => where new (x) shouldn't break any functionality with old(x)

@xavadu @shahidnajam interesting, so there are use cases that require adding ON clauses to a cross join, after all… I did a bit of research on this and, while the documentation on cross joins is relatively scarce, I didn't find any examples that used them. Some even explicitly stated that they weren't supported.

I'll submit a PR with an new test case and fix for this asap!

I'll also do some research on this, but based on the output from MySQL's EXPLAIN, it seems that the following query:

select * from tableA cross join tableB on tableA.column1 = tableB.column2;

Is equivalent to the following:

select * from tableA cross join tableB where tableA.column1 = tableB.column2;

So you could use that as a hotfix?

Also, @shahidnajam, cross joins were never officially supported (there's no reference to them in the code, documentation and tests), so you can't really call that a regression.

@raphaelsaunier Thanks for the answer, we move to use where, @shahidnajam did some benchmark and it have the same performance that using ON (we are working with huge amount of data).

The unexpected was that the app got broken after update a patch version upgrade.

@xavadu Ok, cool! Sorry about that guys! At least it's good to know that you're getting the same performance results as I did.

Can you take a quick look at the updated test case here and let me know if it solves your use case?

raphaelsaunier@85b627d

I looked at test case. It is OK. Thank you!