Mala Mahadevan takes advantage of an extra week:

I just managed to get a post in for this landmark T-SQL Tuesday, hosted by Brent Ozar. Brent was kind enough to keep the submission window open for two weeks instead of the usual one, and I was able to sneak a post in last – minute.

His invitation is to write about the things that immediately stand out as “bad signs” when reviewing a SQL query.

Click through for Mala’s list. It’s a good list. While some items Mala calls out are defensible and quite reasonable, there are some of them (such as a LEFT OUTER JOIN whose columns show up in the WHERE clause for filtering) that are simply not.

Todd Kleinhans provides a suggestion:

What is a linter? Does it work on actual lint?

No, not really. It comes from what could be called or referred to as best practices or guidance originally from the C programming language to perform static program analysis. It helps prevent bugs and follows the concept of “prevention is the cure”.

Click through for a bit of advice around linting, comments, and more.

Thomas Williams has a list:

Nowadays I look after 3rd-party databases more than internally-developed ones, so I accept there’s a whole lot of ex-best practices, vendor preferences, and possibly shortcuts in queries I might come across – whether it’s a poorly-performing query, a blocker, or an error.

(Although, when I developed software more frequently, I was guilty of all the gripes below. My start in SQL, last century, was poring over a big yellow “For Dummies” book. I was the dummy.)

Click through for the list. I particularly hate tibbling, a rather derisive term for the malformed version of Hungarian notation. This would just lead me down a rant about how systems Hungarian notation was a mess, whereas apps Hungarian notation can be useful in certain circumstances. Tibbling provides no semantically valuable information, which is why I dislike it so much.

Rob Farley has a few:

I feel like I should preface this with a disclaimer. I added “potentially-” to the title, because there are many queries that might seem bad but can actually perform just fine. There are queries that on the surface can be great, but are nasty without a particular index, and there are queries that make me cringe a little when looking at them, but are actually okay. Brent Ozar is asking about signs of bad code for this month’s T-SQL Tuesday (the 200th – and I have a response for all 200 if you look back through my history of posts), and he wants us to write this for 2004 Brent, rather than 2026 Brent.

Click through for what Rob has come up with. I agree with all of Rob’s examples and do appreciate his usage of the APPLY operator as a way of solving one common problem.

Tom Zika has a list and starts with AI-generated code:

This one didn’t exist three years ago. Now it’s the first thing I look for.

To be clear, I’m not anti-AI. If the AI wrote clean code, I probably wouldn’t even notice. The red flag isn’t that AI generated it – it’s the patterns that give it away. I recently saw a real case where someone needed to update a set of values. Simple enough, right? Here’s what the AI-generated solution did:

Click through for a laugh, as well as several other red flags.