Noob question: nesting inner joins

what's the difference between these two snippets

[caribguy]

Looking at EXPLAIN in MySQL workbench, the two snippets below seem to be equal.

The first piece of code is much more readable, the second is something that I adapted from an old MS Access query.

Can any of you please hit me with a cluestick and explain if there are any differences?

select transactions.transactions_id, transaction_dates.date, 
    concat_ws(' - ', customers.customer_username, account_types.account_name) as accounts_info, 
    transaction_types.transaction_type_name, transactions.transaction_amount
from transactions

inner join transaction_types on transactions.transaction_types_transaction_types_id = transaction_types.transaction_types_id 
inner join accounts on transactions.accounts_accounts_id = accounts.accounts_id 
inner join transaction_dates on transactions.transaction_dates_date_id = transaction_dates.date_id
inner join account_types on accounts.account_types_account_types_id = account_types.account_types_id 
inner join customers on customers.customers_id = accounts.customers_customers_id 

order by transaction_dates.date desc, accounts_info asc

----

select transactions.transactions_id, transaction_dates.date, 
    concat_ws(' - ', customers.customer_username, account_types.account_name) as accounts_info, 
    transaction_types.transaction_type_name, transactions.transaction_amount
from transaction_dates

inner join ( customers 
 inner join ( account_types
  inner join ( transaction_types
   inner join ( transactions 
    inner join accounts on transactions.accounts_accounts_id = accounts.accounts_id 
   ) on transactions.transaction_types_transaction_types_id = transaction_types.transaction_types_id 
  ) on accounts.account_types_account_types_id = account_types.account_types_id 
 ) on customers.customers_id = accounts.customers_customers_id 
) on transactions.transaction_dates_date_id = transaction_dates.date_id

order by transaction_dates.date desc, accounts_info asc

[caribguy]

I guess that's a no then?

[LifeinAsia]

Offhand, I don't see much difference, other than the second being a lot more clunky. My guess would be that the second would be more inefficient. But that's just a guess, and your DB probably makes it more efficient internally.

[caribguy]

Thanks for confirming that. And yes, I spent quite some time adding a new joined column to the 2nd query before scrapping the whole mess.

When I saw that the result of the 1st query was the same, I figured that 'there must be some reason' for nesting the joins. Maybe speed, memory usage?

This is a project that I really don't want to screw up, so better check with the DB gurus :)