Database Management SystemsOther Join Types

Other Join Types: Beyond Basic Joins

LevelIntermediate

Duration90 mins

TopicOther Join Types

2 / 5

NATURAL JOIN: Implicit Column Matching

The Convenience Trap

What if SQL could automatically figure out how to join tables without you specifying the join condition? NATURAL JOIN promises exactly that—it examines both tables, finds columns with matching names, and joins on them automatically. Zero ON clause required. Zero redundant columns in the result.

Sounds convenient, right? It is—until your schema evolves, a new column is added, and suddenly your reports break in subtle, data-corrupting ways that take weeks to diagnose.

NATURAL JOIN represents one of SQL's most controversial features. Some developers swear by its elegance; many experienced database engineers ban it from their codebases entirely. Understanding how it works—and why it's dangerous—is essential knowledge for any serious SQL practitioner.

What You Will Learn

By the end of this page, you will understand how NATURAL JOIN automatically determines join conditions, master its syntax and behavior across database systems, recognize the schema evolution dangers it introduces, and learn when (if ever) it's appropriate to use in production code.

Concept and Mechanics

NATURAL JOIN is an implicit equi-join that automatically matches columns by name across both tables. Instead of explicitly specifying join conditions, the database infers them from the schema.

How NATURAL JOIN Works:

The database examines both tables and finds all columns with identical names
It creates an implicit equi-join condition on ALL matching column names
The result includes matched columns only once (de-duplication)
Unmatched columns from both tables are included normally

Formal Definition:

If Table R has columns (A, B, C) and Table S has columns (B, C, D), then:

R NATURAL JOIN S

is equivalent to:

SELECT R.A, R.B, R.C, S.D
FROM R INNER JOIN S ON R.B = S.B AND R.C = S.C

Note that B and C appear only once in the result, and the join implicitly requires equality on BOTH matching columns.

natural_join_basic.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-- Sample tables
CREATE TABLE employees (
    employee_id INT PRIMARY KEY,
    employee_name VARCHAR(100),
    department_id INT,
    hire_date DATE
);
 
CREATE TABLE departments (
    department_id INT PRIMARY KEY,
    department_name VARCHAR(100),
    building VARCHAR(50)
);
 
-- NATURAL JOIN: automatically joins on department_id
SELECT *
FROM employees
NATURAL JOIN departments;
 
-- Results:
-- department_id | employee_id | employee_name | hire_date | department_name | building
-- --------------|-------------|---------------|-----------|-----------------|----------
-- 1             | 101         | Alice Smith   | 2022-03-15| Engineering     | Tech Park
-- 1             | 102         | Bob Johnson   | 2023-01-10| Engineering     | Tech Park
-- 2             | 103         | Carol White   | 2021-06-20| Marketing       | Main St
 
-- Note: department_id appears only ONCE, not twice
-- The join was inferred from matching column name

The De-duplication Feature:

Unlike explicit joins where you must manually prevent duplicate columns, NATURAL JOIN automatically includes each matched column exactly once. The value comes from either table (they must be equal for the row to match, so it doesn't matter which).

This can be convenient for display but confusing when debugging—you can't see which original table a column came from in the result.

NATURAL JOIN vs Explicit INNER JOIN
Aspect	NATURAL JOIN	Explicit INNER JOIN
Join condition source	Inferred from matching column names	Explicitly specified in ON clause
Number of conditions	ALL columns with same name	Only what you specify
Duplicate column handling	Automatically de-duplicated	Both copies included (unless explicitly selected)
Schema sensitivity	Very high—adding columns can change behavior	None—explicit conditions
Readability	Concise but implicit	Verbose but explicit
Maintainability	Dangerous—behavior depends on schema	Safe—behavior defined in query

The Implicit Contract

NATURAL JOIN creates a hidden contract between your query and your schema. The query says 'join on whatever columns match' rather than 'join on these specific columns.' This means schema changes that appear unrelated to your query can silently alter its behavior. This implicit dependency is the core danger.

SQL Syntax Across Databases

NATURAL JOIN is part of the SQL standard but has varying levels of support and behavior across database systems.

Standard NATURAL JOIN Syntax:

natural_join_syntax.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
-- Basic NATURAL JOIN
SELECT *
FROM table1
NATURAL JOIN table2;
 
-- NATURAL JOIN with additional filtering
SELECT *
FROM employees
NATURAL JOIN departments
WHERE department_name = 'Engineering';
 
-- Multiple NATURAL JOINs (chains)
SELECT *
FROM employees
NATURAL JOIN departments
NATURAL JOIN locations;
 
-- NATURAL JOIN combined with other join types
SELECT *
FROM employees
NATURAL JOIN departments
LEFT JOIN projects ON projects.project_lead = employees.employee_id;
 
-- NATURAL LEFT, RIGHT, FULL OUTER variants
SELECT *
FROM employees
NATURAL LEFT JOIN departments;
 
SELECT *
FROM employees
NATURAL RIGHT JOIN departments;
 
SELECT *
FROM employees
NATURAL FULL OUTER JOIN departments;

Database-Specific Support:

NATURAL JOIN Support by Database
Database	NATURAL JOIN Support	NATURAL OUTER JOIN	Notes
PostgreSQL	Full support	LEFT, RIGHT, FULL	Column order in result: common columns first
MySQL	Full support	LEFT, RIGHT	No FULL OUTER; subtly different column ordering
Oracle	Full support	LEFT, RIGHT, FULL	Fully SQL-standard compliant
SQL Server	Not supported	N/A	Deliberate omission—use explicit INNER JOIN
SQLite	Full support	LEFT only (no RIGHT/FULL)	Common column appears once in result

SQL Server's Deliberate Omission

Microsoft SQL Server intentionally does not support NATURAL JOIN. The official position is that implicit join conditions are too error-prone for production use. This reflects broader industry sentiment—many organizations using other databases also prohibit NATURAL JOIN in their coding standards.

natural_join_edge_cases.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-- Edge case 1: No matching columns → CROSS JOIN
CREATE TABLE table_a (a_id INT, value_a VARCHAR(50));
CREATE TABLE table_b (b_id INT, value_b VARCHAR(50));
 
SELECT * FROM table_a NATURAL JOIN table_b;
-- Result: Cartesian product! No common columns = no filter
 
-- Edge case 2: All columns match → very restrictive join
CREATE TABLE audit_1 (id INT, timestamp TIMESTAMP, user_id INT, action VARCHAR(50));
CREATE TABLE audit_2 (id INT, timestamp TIMESTAMP, user_id INT, action VARCHAR(50));
 
SELECT * FROM audit_1 NATURAL JOIN audit_2;
-- Joins on ALL four columns: id AND timestamp AND user_id AND action
-- Only rows with identical values in ALL columns match
 
-- Edge case 3: Unexpected column matches
-- Added 'status' column to both tables for different purposes
ALTER TABLE employees ADD COLUMN status VARCHAR(20); -- 'Active', 'Inactive'
ALTER TABLE departments ADD COLUMN status VARCHAR(20); -- 'Open', 'Closed'
 
SELECT * FROM employees NATURAL JOIN departments;
-- Now joins on department_id AND status!
-- Active employees can only match Open departments?
-- This is almost certainly NOT what you intended

The Schema Evolution Danger

NATURAL JOIN's most significant problem is its vulnerability to schema changes. A column addition or rename that seems completely unrelated to your query can silently alter (or break) its behavior.

Scenario: The 'status' Column Problem

Consider this real-world disaster pattern:

schema_evolution_disaster.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
-- Original tables (Month 1)
CREATE TABLE orders (
    order_id INT PRIMARY KEY,
    customer_id INT,
    order_date DATE,
    total_amount DECIMAL(10,2)
);
 
CREATE TABLE customers (
    customer_id INT PRIMARY KEY,
    customer_name VARCHAR(100),
    email VARCHAR(100)
);
 
-- Original query: Works perfectly
SELECT order_id, customer_name, order_date, total_amount
FROM orders
NATURAL JOIN customers;
 
-- Joins on customer_id, returns all orders with customer names
-- Result: 10,000 rows as expected
 
-- ========================================
-- Month 3: Schema change (seemingly unrelated)
-- ========================================
 
-- Developer adds 'status' column to orders for order lifecycle
ALTER TABLE orders ADD COLUMN status VARCHAR(20) DEFAULT 'pending';
 
-- Month 4: Different developer adds 'status' to customers for account status
ALTER TABLE customers ADD COLUMN status VARCHAR(20) DEFAULT 'active';
 
-- Month 5: Reports are suddenly broken!
SELECT order_id, customer_name, order_date, total_amount
FROM orders
NATURAL JOIN customers;
 
-- Now joins on customer_id AND status!
-- Only 'pending' orders can match 'active' customers? No.
-- Only orders where order.status = customer.status
-- Result: 0 rows (or some tiny subset)
 
-- The query never changed. The SELECT columns never changed.
-- Yet the behavior changed completely, silently, catastrophically.

The Silent Failure Mode

This failure is particularly insidious because there's no error message. The query runs successfully—it just returns wrong data. Reports become subtly inaccurate. Financial calculations drift. By the time anyone notices, weeks of data may be corrupted. Debugging is a nightmare because the query itself never changed.

Common Collision-Prone Column Names:

Certain column names appear in many tables, making them frequent sources of NATURAL JOIN disasters:

Frequently Colliding Column Names
Column Name	Common Usages	Danger Level
`id`	Every table's primary key	Extreme—almost guaranteed collision
`name`	Entity names in most tables	Extreme—very common collision
`status`	Lifecycle/state tracking	High—different meanings collide
`type`	Category/classification	High—different type systems collide
`created_at`	Audit timestamps	High—timestamp collision filters wrong
`updated_at`	Audit timestamps	High—same as created_at
`description`	Freeform text	Medium—rarely matches but very confusing
`code`	Short identifiers	Medium—different code systems
`value`	Generic numeric/text	Medium—semantically different
`active`	Boolean flags	High—commonly added

Why Explicit Joins Are Immune:

Compare with an explicit INNER JOIN:

explicit_join_immunity.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- Explicit join: immune to schema changes
SELECT o.order_id, c.customer_name, o.order_date, o.total_amount
FROM orders o
INNER JOIN customers c ON o.customer_id = c.customer_id;
 
-- Even after adding 'status' to both tables:
-- - Join condition explicitly says "ON o.customer_id = c.customer_id"
-- - Adding 'status' has zero effect on join behavior
-- - Query continues working exactly as intended
-- - If you WANT to include status in join, you must explicitly add it
 
-- The query's behavior is defined BY the query, not by the schema

NATURAL JOIN Risk Factors

•Schema evolution — Any column addition can silently change join behavior
•Multiple developers/teams — Others may not know your queries depend on column names
•ORM/migration tools — Automated schema changes increase collision risk
•Cross-database portability — Column name differences between environments
•Vendor package updates — Third-party schemas may add columns
•Audit column patterns — Standard columns (created_at, etc.) are collision-prone
•No static analysis — Queries can't be validated against future schemas

When NATURAL JOIN Might Be Appropriate

Given the significant dangers, when (if ever) is NATURAL JOIN appropriate? There are narrow circumstances where its convenience outweighs its risks:

1. Ad-hoc Exploratory Queries:

For one-time data exploration where you won't save the query:

adhoc_exploration.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-- Quick data exploration (not production code)
-- You're just looking at data, not building a report
 
-- "Let me see what's in these related tables"
SELECT * FROM employees NATURAL JOIN departments LIMIT 10;
 
-- Faster to type than figuring out the foreign key
-- OK for interactive exploration
-- NEVER save this query for reuse

2. Schema Designed for NATURAL JOIN:

If your schema is specifically designed with unique column names that prevent collisions, NATURAL JOIN becomes safer (but still not recommended for production):

designed_schema.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
-- Schema designed with globally unique column names
CREATE TABLE employees (
    employee_id INT PRIMARY KEY,          -- "employee_" prefix
    employee_name VARCHAR(100),           -- unique name
    employee_status VARCHAR(20),          -- prefixed to avoid collision
    employee_department_id INT            -- foreign key, unique name
);
 
CREATE TABLE departments (
    department_id INT PRIMARY KEY,        -- "department_" prefix
    department_name VARCHAR(100),         -- unique name
    department_status VARCHAR(20),        -- different from employee_status
    department_building VARCHAR(50)
);
 
-- With this naming convention, NATURAL JOIN on
-- employee_department_id = department_id would FAIL
-- because the names don't match exactly
 
-- This schema isn't designed for NATURAL JOIN after all!
-- Truly supporting NATURAL JOIN requires matching FK names:
CREATE TABLE employees_v2 (
    employee_id INT PRIMARY KEY,
    employee_name VARCHAR(100),
    department_id INT                     -- Same name as departments.department_id
);
 
-- Now NATURAL JOIN works, but you still have collision risk
-- if both tables add 'created_at' later

3. Teaching and Demonstrations:

NATURAL JOIN is useful for teaching relational concepts because it focuses on the logical relationship rather than syntax details:

teaching_example.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
-- In a classroom/tutorial setting:
-- "Tables are related through common columns"
-- NATURAL JOIN makes this concept visible
 
-- Student sees:
SELECT * FROM students NATURAL JOIN enrollments NATURAL JOIN courses;
 
-- And immediately understands: these tables connect
-- through their shared column names
 
-- Much cleaner for learning than:
SELECT * FROM students s
JOIN enrollments e ON s.student_id = e.student_id
JOIN courses c ON e.course_id = c.course_id;
 
-- But always teach: "Use explicit JOIN in real code!"

The Consensus View

The professional consensus is clear: NATURAL JOIN should be avoided in production code. The time saved typing is never worth the debugging time when schema changes cause silent failures. If you work on a team or codebase that will persist beyond your current session, use explicit JOIN with ON clauses.

NATURAL JOIN Decision Criteria

•Use NATURAL JOIN if: One-time ad-hoc query, not saved, for immediate exploration only
•Use NATURAL JOIN if: Teaching relational concepts in controlled environment
•Avoid NATURAL JOIN if: Query will be saved, shared, or reused
•Avoid NATURAL JOIN if: Query is part of production code or reporting
•Avoid NATURAL JOIN if: Schema is maintained by others or may evolve
•Avoid NATURAL JOIN if: Codebase has any longevity expectations
•Never use NATURAL JOIN if: Organization has SQL coding standards (most prohibit it)

NATURAL JOIN vs USING Clause

The USING clause (covered in detail on the next page) provides a middle ground between NATURAL JOIN's full automation and explicit ON clause verbosity. Understanding their differences helps you choose appropriately.

Comparison:

natural_vs_using.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-- Three ways to express the same join intention
 
-- 1. NATURAL JOIN: Fully implicit
SELECT * 
FROM employees 
NATURAL JOIN departments;
-- Joins on ALL common column names (current and future!)
-- Danger: Schema changes affect behavior
 
-- 2. USING clause: Explicit column specification
SELECT * 
FROM employees 
JOIN departments USING (department_id);
-- Joins on exactly the specified column(s)
-- Safe: Adding 'status' to both tables has no effect
-- Still de-duplicates the column
 
-- 3. ON clause: Fully explicit
SELECT * 
FROM employees e
JOIN departments d ON e.department_id = d.department_id;
-- Joins on exactly the specified condition
-- Safe: Schema changes have no effect
-- Does NOT de-duplicate (both columns appear)

NATURAL JOIN vs USING vs ON Comparison
Feature	NATURAL JOIN	USING (cols)	ON condition
Join columns	All matching names (automatic)	Specified columns only	Specified condition
Schema sensitivity	High (dangerous)	None	None
Column de-duplication	Yes	Yes	No
Requires same column name	Yes (automatic)	Yes (specified)	No (can alias)
Non-equality conditions	No	No	Yes
Table prefix in result	No (ambiguous)	No (shared)	Yes (you control)
Production recommendation	Avoid	Acceptable	Preferred

USING as NATURAL JOIN Alternative

If you like NATURAL JOIN's de-duplication feature but want to avoid schema sensitivity, use USING instead. It provides the same column merging behavior but with explicit column specification, making your queries immune to schema evolution while remaining concise.

Debugging NATURAL JOIN Issues

When NATURAL JOIN queries start returning unexpected results, debugging requires systematic investigation of schema changes.

Step 1: Identify Common Columns

debug_common_columns.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-- PostgreSQL: Find columns common to both tables
SELECT a.column_name
FROM information_schema.columns a
JOIN information_schema.columns b 
    ON a.column_name = b.column_name
WHERE a.table_name = 'employees' 
    AND b.table_name = 'departments'
    AND a.table_schema = 'public'
    AND b.table_schema = 'public';
 
-- Output shows ALL columns being used for NATURAL JOIN:
-- column_name
-- -------------
-- department_id
-- status         ← Surprise! This shouldn't be a join condition
-- created_at     ← Another surprise collision
 
-- MySQL equivalent:
SELECT a.column_name
FROM information_schema.columns a, information_schema.columns b
WHERE a.column_name = b.column_name
    AND a.table_name = 'employees'
    AND b.table_name = 'departments'
    AND a.table_schema = DATABASE();

Step 2: Compare Expected vs Actual Join Behavior

debug_expected_vs_actual.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-- What you probably intended (single column join):
SELECT COUNT(*) AS intended_count
FROM employees e
JOIN departments d ON e.department_id = d.department_id;
-- Result: 500 rows
 
-- What NATURAL JOIN is doing (multi-column join):
SELECT COUNT(*) AS natural_count
FROM employees NATURAL JOIN departments;
-- Result: 12 rows (much fewer than expected!)
 
-- Find the extra conditions causing the reduction:
-- Reconstruct the actual NATURAL JOIN conditions:
SELECT COUNT(*) AS reconstructed_count
FROM employees e
JOIN departments d 
    ON e.department_id = d.department_id
    AND e.status = d.status              -- Unexpected condition!
    AND e.created_at = d.created_at;     -- Impossible unless coincidence
-- Result: 12 rows (matches NATURAL JOIN)
 
-- Now you see the problem: status and created_at are colliding

Step 3: Fix by Converting to Explicit Join

debug_fix_query.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
-- The fix is simple: make the join explicit
-- Change:
SELECT * FROM employees NATURAL JOIN departments;
 
-- To:
SELECT e.*, d.department_name, d.building
FROM employees e
JOIN departments d ON e.department_id = d.department_id;
 
-- Or with USING if you want de-duplication:
SELECT *
FROM employees
JOIN departments USING (department_id);
 
-- Both are now immune to future schema changes

NATURAL JOIN Debugging Checklist

•Query information_schema to list all columns common to both tables
•Identify unexpected columns that shouldn't be part of the join condition
•Reconstruct the implicit join as an explicit JOIN to verify behavior
•Check recent schema changes (column additions) since query last worked
•Replace NATURAL JOIN with explicit JOIN or USING to prevent recurrence
•Add regression tests that verify row counts to detect future breaks
•Update coding standards to prohibit NATURAL JOIN organization-wide

Summary and Key Takeaways

NATURAL JOIN represents a trade-off between convenience and safety—and in production contexts, safety must win. Let's consolidate the key lessons:

Key Takeaways

•NATURAL JOIN automatically joins on all matching column names — convenient but creates hidden dependencies on schema structure.
•Schema changes can silently break queries — adding a column with a common name (status, type, etc.) changes join behavior without warning.
•The failure mode is silent wrong data — no errors, just incorrect results that may go unnoticed for extended periods.
•De-duplication is automatic — matched columns appear once in results, which can obscure debugging.
•SQL Server intentionally excludes NATURAL JOIN — reflecting industry consensus that implicit joins are too dangerous.
•USING clause is a safer alternative — provides explicit column specification with the same de-duplication benefit.
•Production code should use explicit JOIN with ON — the verbosity is worthwhile for maintainability and reliability.
•NATURAL JOIN is acceptable only for one-time ad-hoc exploration — never in production code, reports, or saved queries.

Page Complete

You now understand NATURAL JOIN's mechanics, dangers, and the rare circumstances where it might be acceptable. The next page explores the USING clause—a middle-ground approach that provides column de-duplication with explicit specification, offering safety without sacrificing all convenience.

2 / 5

Loading learning content...

Database Management SystemsOther Join Types

Other Join Types: Beyond Basic Joins

LevelIntermediate

Duration90 mins

TopicOther Join Types

2 / 5

NATURAL JOIN: Implicit Column Matching

The Convenience Trap

Sounds convenient, right? It is—until your schema evolves, a new column is added, and suddenly your reports break in subtle, data-corrupting ways that take weeks to diagnose.

What You Will Learn

Concept and Mechanics

NATURAL JOIN is an implicit equi-join that automatically matches columns by name across both tables. Instead of explicitly specifying join conditions, the database infers them from the schema.

How NATURAL JOIN Works:

The database examines both tables and finds all columns with identical names
It creates an implicit equi-join condition on ALL matching column names
The result includes matched columns only once (de-duplication)
Unmatched columns from both tables are included normally

Formal Definition:

If Table R has columns (A, B, C) and Table S has columns (B, C, D), then:

R NATURAL JOIN S

is equivalent to:

SELECT R.A, R.B, R.C, S.D
FROM R INNER JOIN S ON R.B = S.B AND R.C = S.C

Note that B and C appear only once in the result, and the join implicitly requires equality on BOTH matching columns.

natural_join_basic.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-- Sample tables
CREATE TABLE employees (
    employee_id INT PRIMARY KEY,
    employee_name VARCHAR(100),
    department_id INT,
    hire_date DATE
);
 
CREATE TABLE departments (
    department_id INT PRIMARY KEY,
    department_name VARCHAR(100),
    building VARCHAR(50)
);
 
-- NATURAL JOIN: automatically joins on department_id
SELECT *
FROM employees
NATURAL JOIN departments;
 
-- Results:
-- department_id | employee_id | employee_name | hire_date | department_name | building
-- --------------|-------------|---------------|-----------|-----------------|----------
-- 1             | 101         | Alice Smith   | 2022-03-15| Engineering     | Tech Park
-- 1             | 102         | Bob Johnson   | 2023-01-10| Engineering     | Tech Park
-- 2             | 103         | Carol White   | 2021-06-20| Marketing       | Main St
 
-- Note: department_id appears only ONCE, not twice
-- The join was inferred from matching column name

The De-duplication Feature:

This can be convenient for display but confusing when debugging—you can't see which original table a column came from in the result.

NATURAL JOIN vs Explicit INNER JOIN
Aspect	NATURAL JOIN	Explicit INNER JOIN
Join condition source	Inferred from matching column names	Explicitly specified in ON clause
Number of conditions	ALL columns with same name	Only what you specify
Duplicate column handling	Automatically de-duplicated	Both copies included (unless explicitly selected)
Schema sensitivity	Very high—adding columns can change behavior	None—explicit conditions
Readability	Concise but implicit	Verbose but explicit
Maintainability	Dangerous—behavior depends on schema	Safe—behavior defined in query

The Implicit Contract

SQL Syntax Across Databases

NATURAL JOIN is part of the SQL standard but has varying levels of support and behavior across database systems.

Standard NATURAL JOIN Syntax:

natural_join_syntax.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
-- Basic NATURAL JOIN
SELECT *
FROM table1
NATURAL JOIN table2;
 
-- NATURAL JOIN with additional filtering
SELECT *
FROM employees
NATURAL JOIN departments
WHERE department_name = 'Engineering';
 
-- Multiple NATURAL JOINs (chains)
SELECT *
FROM employees
NATURAL JOIN departments
NATURAL JOIN locations;
 
-- NATURAL JOIN combined with other join types
SELECT *
FROM employees
NATURAL JOIN departments
LEFT JOIN projects ON projects.project_lead = employees.employee_id;
 
-- NATURAL LEFT, RIGHT, FULL OUTER variants
SELECT *
FROM employees
NATURAL LEFT JOIN departments;
 
SELECT *
FROM employees
NATURAL RIGHT JOIN departments;
 
SELECT *
FROM employees
NATURAL FULL OUTER JOIN departments;

Database-Specific Support:

NATURAL JOIN Support by Database
Database	NATURAL JOIN Support	NATURAL OUTER JOIN	Notes
PostgreSQL	Full support	LEFT, RIGHT, FULL	Column order in result: common columns first
MySQL	Full support	LEFT, RIGHT	No FULL OUTER; subtly different column ordering
Oracle	Full support	LEFT, RIGHT, FULL	Fully SQL-standard compliant
SQL Server	Not supported	N/A	Deliberate omission—use explicit INNER JOIN
SQLite	Full support	LEFT only (no RIGHT/FULL)	Common column appears once in result

SQL Server's Deliberate Omission

natural_join_edge_cases.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-- Edge case 1: No matching columns → CROSS JOIN
CREATE TABLE table_a (a_id INT, value_a VARCHAR(50));
CREATE TABLE table_b (b_id INT, value_b VARCHAR(50));
 
SELECT * FROM table_a NATURAL JOIN table_b;
-- Result: Cartesian product! No common columns = no filter
 
-- Edge case 2: All columns match → very restrictive join
CREATE TABLE audit_1 (id INT, timestamp TIMESTAMP, user_id INT, action VARCHAR(50));
CREATE TABLE audit_2 (id INT, timestamp TIMESTAMP, user_id INT, action VARCHAR(50));
 
SELECT * FROM audit_1 NATURAL JOIN audit_2;
-- Joins on ALL four columns: id AND timestamp AND user_id AND action
-- Only rows with identical values in ALL columns match
 
-- Edge case 3: Unexpected column matches
-- Added 'status' column to both tables for different purposes
ALTER TABLE employees ADD COLUMN status VARCHAR(20); -- 'Active', 'Inactive'
ALTER TABLE departments ADD COLUMN status VARCHAR(20); -- 'Open', 'Closed'
 
SELECT * FROM employees NATURAL JOIN departments;
-- Now joins on department_id AND status!
-- Active employees can only match Open departments?
-- This is almost certainly NOT what you intended

The Schema Evolution Danger

NATURAL JOIN's most significant problem is its vulnerability to schema changes. A column addition or rename that seems completely unrelated to your query can silently alter (or break) its behavior.

Scenario: The 'status' Column Problem

Consider this real-world disaster pattern:

schema_evolution_disaster.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
-- Original tables (Month 1)
CREATE TABLE orders (
    order_id INT PRIMARY KEY,
    customer_id INT,
    order_date DATE,
    total_amount DECIMAL(10,2)
);
 
CREATE TABLE customers (
    customer_id INT PRIMARY KEY,
    customer_name VARCHAR(100),
    email VARCHAR(100)
);
 
-- Original query: Works perfectly
SELECT order_id, customer_name, order_date, total_amount
FROM orders
NATURAL JOIN customers;
 
-- Joins on customer_id, returns all orders with customer names
-- Result: 10,000 rows as expected
 
-- ========================================
-- Month 3: Schema change (seemingly unrelated)
-- ========================================
 
-- Developer adds 'status' column to orders for order lifecycle
ALTER TABLE orders ADD COLUMN status VARCHAR(20) DEFAULT 'pending';
 
-- Month 4: Different developer adds 'status' to customers for account status
ALTER TABLE customers ADD COLUMN status VARCHAR(20) DEFAULT 'active';
 
-- Month 5: Reports are suddenly broken!
SELECT order_id, customer_name, order_date, total_amount
FROM orders
NATURAL JOIN customers;
 
-- Now joins on customer_id AND status!
-- Only 'pending' orders can match 'active' customers? No.
-- Only orders where order.status = customer.status
-- Result: 0 rows (or some tiny subset)
 
-- The query never changed. The SELECT columns never changed.
-- Yet the behavior changed completely, silently, catastrophically.

The Silent Failure Mode

Common Collision-Prone Column Names:

Certain column names appear in many tables, making them frequent sources of NATURAL JOIN disasters:

Frequently Colliding Column Names
Column Name	Common Usages	Danger Level
`id`	Every table's primary key	Extreme—almost guaranteed collision
`name`	Entity names in most tables	Extreme—very common collision
`status`	Lifecycle/state tracking	High—different meanings collide
`type`	Category/classification	High—different type systems collide
`created_at`	Audit timestamps	High—timestamp collision filters wrong
`updated_at`	Audit timestamps	High—same as created_at
`description`	Freeform text	Medium—rarely matches but very confusing
`code`	Short identifiers	Medium—different code systems
`value`	Generic numeric/text	Medium—semantically different
`active`	Boolean flags	High—commonly added

Why Explicit Joins Are Immune:

Compare with an explicit INNER JOIN:

explicit_join_immunity.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- Explicit join: immune to schema changes
SELECT o.order_id, c.customer_name, o.order_date, o.total_amount
FROM orders o
INNER JOIN customers c ON o.customer_id = c.customer_id;
 
-- Even after adding 'status' to both tables:
-- - Join condition explicitly says "ON o.customer_id = c.customer_id"
-- - Adding 'status' has zero effect on join behavior
-- - Query continues working exactly as intended
-- - If you WANT to include status in join, you must explicitly add it
 
-- The query's behavior is defined BY the query, not by the schema

NATURAL JOIN Risk Factors

•Schema evolution — Any column addition can silently change join behavior
•Multiple developers/teams — Others may not know your queries depend on column names
•ORM/migration tools — Automated schema changes increase collision risk
•Cross-database portability — Column name differences between environments
•Vendor package updates — Third-party schemas may add columns
•Audit column patterns — Standard columns (created_at, etc.) are collision-prone
•No static analysis — Queries can't be validated against future schemas

When NATURAL JOIN Might Be Appropriate

Given the significant dangers, when (if ever) is NATURAL JOIN appropriate? There are narrow circumstances where its convenience outweighs its risks:

1. Ad-hoc Exploratory Queries:

For one-time data exploration where you won't save the query:

adhoc_exploration.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-- Quick data exploration (not production code)
-- You're just looking at data, not building a report
 
-- "Let me see what's in these related tables"
SELECT * FROM employees NATURAL JOIN departments LIMIT 10;
 
-- Faster to type than figuring out the foreign key
-- OK for interactive exploration
-- NEVER save this query for reuse

2. Schema Designed for NATURAL JOIN:

If your schema is specifically designed with unique column names that prevent collisions, NATURAL JOIN becomes safer (but still not recommended for production):

designed_schema.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
-- Schema designed with globally unique column names
CREATE TABLE employees (
    employee_id INT PRIMARY KEY,          -- "employee_" prefix
    employee_name VARCHAR(100),           -- unique name
    employee_status VARCHAR(20),          -- prefixed to avoid collision
    employee_department_id INT            -- foreign key, unique name
);
 
CREATE TABLE departments (
    department_id INT PRIMARY KEY,        -- "department_" prefix
    department_name VARCHAR(100),         -- unique name
    department_status VARCHAR(20),        -- different from employee_status
    department_building VARCHAR(50)
);
 
-- With this naming convention, NATURAL JOIN on
-- employee_department_id = department_id would FAIL
-- because the names don't match exactly
 
-- This schema isn't designed for NATURAL JOIN after all!
-- Truly supporting NATURAL JOIN requires matching FK names:
CREATE TABLE employees_v2 (
    employee_id INT PRIMARY KEY,
    employee_name VARCHAR(100),
    department_id INT                     -- Same name as departments.department_id
);
 
-- Now NATURAL JOIN works, but you still have collision risk
-- if both tables add 'created_at' later

3. Teaching and Demonstrations:

NATURAL JOIN is useful for teaching relational concepts because it focuses on the logical relationship rather than syntax details:

teaching_example.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
-- In a classroom/tutorial setting:
-- "Tables are related through common columns"
-- NATURAL JOIN makes this concept visible
 
-- Student sees:
SELECT * FROM students NATURAL JOIN enrollments NATURAL JOIN courses;
 
-- And immediately understands: these tables connect
-- through their shared column names
 
-- Much cleaner for learning than:
SELECT * FROM students s
JOIN enrollments e ON s.student_id = e.student_id
JOIN courses c ON e.course_id = c.course_id;
 
-- But always teach: "Use explicit JOIN in real code!"

The Consensus View

NATURAL JOIN Decision Criteria

•Use NATURAL JOIN if: One-time ad-hoc query, not saved, for immediate exploration only
•Use NATURAL JOIN if: Teaching relational concepts in controlled environment
•Avoid NATURAL JOIN if: Query will be saved, shared, or reused
•Avoid NATURAL JOIN if: Query is part of production code or reporting
•Avoid NATURAL JOIN if: Schema is maintained by others or may evolve
•Avoid NATURAL JOIN if: Codebase has any longevity expectations
•Never use NATURAL JOIN if: Organization has SQL coding standards (most prohibit it)

NATURAL JOIN vs USING Clause

Comparison:

natural_vs_using.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-- Three ways to express the same join intention
 
-- 1. NATURAL JOIN: Fully implicit
SELECT * 
FROM employees 
NATURAL JOIN departments;
-- Joins on ALL common column names (current and future!)
-- Danger: Schema changes affect behavior
 
-- 2. USING clause: Explicit column specification
SELECT * 
FROM employees 
JOIN departments USING (department_id);
-- Joins on exactly the specified column(s)
-- Safe: Adding 'status' to both tables has no effect
-- Still de-duplicates the column
 
-- 3. ON clause: Fully explicit
SELECT * 
FROM employees e
JOIN departments d ON e.department_id = d.department_id;
-- Joins on exactly the specified condition
-- Safe: Schema changes have no effect
-- Does NOT de-duplicate (both columns appear)

NATURAL JOIN vs USING vs ON Comparison
Feature	NATURAL JOIN	USING (cols)	ON condition
Join columns	All matching names (automatic)	Specified columns only	Specified condition
Schema sensitivity	High (dangerous)	None	None
Column de-duplication	Yes	Yes	No
Requires same column name	Yes (automatic)	Yes (specified)	No (can alias)
Non-equality conditions	No	No	Yes
Table prefix in result	No (ambiguous)	No (shared)	Yes (you control)
Production recommendation	Avoid	Acceptable	Preferred

USING as NATURAL JOIN Alternative

Debugging NATURAL JOIN Issues

When NATURAL JOIN queries start returning unexpected results, debugging requires systematic investigation of schema changes.

Step 1: Identify Common Columns

debug_common_columns.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-- PostgreSQL: Find columns common to both tables
SELECT a.column_name
FROM information_schema.columns a
JOIN information_schema.columns b 
    ON a.column_name = b.column_name
WHERE a.table_name = 'employees' 
    AND b.table_name = 'departments'
    AND a.table_schema = 'public'
    AND b.table_schema = 'public';
 
-- Output shows ALL columns being used for NATURAL JOIN:
-- column_name
-- -------------
-- department_id
-- status         ← Surprise! This shouldn't be a join condition
-- created_at     ← Another surprise collision
 
-- MySQL equivalent:
SELECT a.column_name
FROM information_schema.columns a, information_schema.columns b
WHERE a.column_name = b.column_name
    AND a.table_name = 'employees'
    AND b.table_name = 'departments'
    AND a.table_schema = DATABASE();

Step 2: Compare Expected vs Actual Join Behavior

debug_expected_vs_actual.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-- What you probably intended (single column join):
SELECT COUNT(*) AS intended_count
FROM employees e
JOIN departments d ON e.department_id = d.department_id;
-- Result: 500 rows
 
-- What NATURAL JOIN is doing (multi-column join):
SELECT COUNT(*) AS natural_count
FROM employees NATURAL JOIN departments;
-- Result: 12 rows (much fewer than expected!)
 
-- Find the extra conditions causing the reduction:
-- Reconstruct the actual NATURAL JOIN conditions:
SELECT COUNT(*) AS reconstructed_count
FROM employees e
JOIN departments d 
    ON e.department_id = d.department_id
    AND e.status = d.status              -- Unexpected condition!
    AND e.created_at = d.created_at;     -- Impossible unless coincidence
-- Result: 12 rows (matches NATURAL JOIN)
 
-- Now you see the problem: status and created_at are colliding

Step 3: Fix by Converting to Explicit Join

debug_fix_query.sql
SQL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
-- The fix is simple: make the join explicit
-- Change:
SELECT * FROM employees NATURAL JOIN departments;
 
-- To:
SELECT e.*, d.department_name, d.building
FROM employees e
JOIN departments d ON e.department_id = d.department_id;
 
-- Or with USING if you want de-duplication:
SELECT *
FROM employees
JOIN departments USING (department_id);
 
-- Both are now immune to future schema changes

NATURAL JOIN Debugging Checklist

•Query information_schema to list all columns common to both tables
•Identify unexpected columns that shouldn't be part of the join condition
•Reconstruct the implicit join as an explicit JOIN to verify behavior
•Check recent schema changes (column additions) since query last worked
•Replace NATURAL JOIN with explicit JOIN or USING to prevent recurrence
•Add regression tests that verify row counts to detect future breaks
•Update coding standards to prohibit NATURAL JOIN organization-wide

Summary and Key Takeaways

NATURAL JOIN represents a trade-off between convenience and safety—and in production contexts, safety must win. Let's consolidate the key lessons:

Key Takeaways

•NATURAL JOIN automatically joins on all matching column names — convenient but creates hidden dependencies on schema structure.
•Schema changes can silently break queries — adding a column with a common name (status, type, etc.) changes join behavior without warning.
•The failure mode is silent wrong data — no errors, just incorrect results that may go unnoticed for extended periods.
•De-duplication is automatic — matched columns appear once in results, which can obscure debugging.
•SQL Server intentionally excludes NATURAL JOIN — reflecting industry consensus that implicit joins are too dangerous.
•USING clause is a safer alternative — provides explicit column specification with the same de-duplication benefit.
•Production code should use explicit JOIN with ON — the verbosity is worthwhile for maintainability and reliability.
•NATURAL JOIN is acceptable only for one-time ad-hoc exploration — never in production code, reports, or saved queries.

Page Complete

2 / 5