Category: Syntax

Chris Bell warns against using double dot syntax:

I am finding more and more cases where SQL code is being created using the double dot or period for the 2 part naming convention.

For example, instead of using dbo.table1 I am seeing ..table1.

I don’t know who suggested this in the first place, but it is not a good idea. Sure it works and does what you expect, but there is a HUGE risk with doing this. When you use the .. syntax, you are telling the code to use whatever the default schema is for the user that is running the query. By default that is the dbo schema, but there is no guarantee that all systems are going to be that way.

Read on to understand why this is a big deal.

Shane O’Neill shows how to rename a schema (and how to get yourself in trouble trying):

I repeat the above: eh…what???

Where did my table go???

Please tell me I didn’t delete the table? It’s a test system and I took a backup before starting but it’s a whole lot of hassle to recreate the table.

Click through for the full story.

Jeffrey Verheul shows how to use the PIVOT operator in T-SQL:

The idea of using key-value pairs to store data isn’t new, but with the rapid development of cloud solutions like Azure and the hype around NoSQL databases, using key-value pairs to store data got a big boost. Especially developers (in my experience) love using key-value pair to store their data, because it’s easy for them to consume the data in an application. But it gives the database professional an extra challenge because we’re used to retrieve columns with values instead of a record per value. So how can we turn those key-value pairs into rows?

This is a good example of using PIVOT.  I’m not a big fan of storing data in key-value pairs and using pivoting operators because you’re burning CPU on that very expensive SQL Server instance (and you’re not taking advantage of what relational databases do well); if you really need to store data as key-value, I’d recommend doing the pivot in cheaper application servers.

Kevin Hill explains a potential performance difference between using NOT IN and using a left join:

Basic stuff, right?   Both will return 951 records (books) that I do not own.  And, very quickly…because the tables are tiny.   Sub-1 second is fast.

The issue here is HOW the rows are compared.

English version now, techy stuff later:

In the first query, this is equivalent to you standing at the bookstore and calling home to have someone check to see if the book in your hand is already in your collection.  EVERY time.  One by one.

In the second, you got really smart and brought a list with you, which you are comparing to the books on the shelf at the store.   You’ve got both “lists” in one place, so it is far more efficient.

Even in the case with a few hundred records, you can see why there’d be a performance difference.

Grant Fritchey shows that CTEs are not tables; they’re expressions:

The Common Table Expression (CTE) is a great tool in T-SQL. The CTE provides a mechanism to define a query that can be easily reused over and over within another query. The CTE also provides a mechanism for recursion which, though a little dangerous and overused, is extremely handy for certain types of queries. However, the CTE has a very unfortunate name. Over and over I’ve had to walk people back from the “Table” in Common Table Expression. The CTE is just a query. It’s not a table. It’s not providing a temporary storage space like a table variable or a temporary table. It’s just a query. Think of it more like a temporary view, which is also just a query.

Read the whole thing.

Jason Brimhall discusses common table expressions:

Wait! Hold on two seconds there! Surely the semi-colon is an absolute requirement because we see it everywhere that it is a mandatory requirement.

The reality is that the semi-colon requirement is not really entirely accurate. If the CTE happens to be in the same batch, then the previous statement in the batch must be terminated by the semi-colon.

This post went down an unexpected path, and ended up being rather interesting.  Read the whole thing.

Daniel Hutmacher shows an elegant way to compare multiple nullable columns on two tables:

Because we’ve added OR conditions into the mix, we’re forced to use the Nested Loop join, which loops over table B for every single row in A. That’s a lot of index scans and it comes with a hefty price tag.

Here’s an absolutely eye-watering beautiful pattern that I found on the Interwebs (though I forgot where) the other day.

This is an interesting use of INTERSECT.  Check it out.