Posted by Erland Sommarskog on 11/15/05 00:46

Hugo Kornelis (hugo@pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo) writes:
> I find it more understandable to never leave out the optional AS keyword
> between table name and alias. I also believe that there would be less
> confusion if in this case all three occurences of dbo.refDROP_VALUES had
> been aliased.

And even less confusing if the alias had been short, like DV1, DV2 etc.
In my opinion using alias is a necessity in most cases, as if you alwyas
write out the table names in full, it's difficult to see the forest
for the trees.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx

• Next in forum: Re: who knows reporting service
• Prev in forum: Re: History of logins or Userids
• Thread view: Re: SQL Join with unknown tables - but it works!?!

[Reply to this message]