Comments
Sort by recent activity
I can show you one version that doesn't work...
First, the following does work:
SELECT *
FROM [HumanResources].[EmployeeAddress] ea
JOIN [HumanResources].[Employee] e ON --***
JOIN [HumanResources].[EmployeeDepartmentHistory] edh ON e.[EmployeeID] = edh.[EmployeeID]
... type space before the *** comment and you get joins between "e" and "ea" ... one comment here -- I'd like to see the joins go BOTH ways if possible. I actually prefer doing <table I'm joining to>.col = <table I'm joining from>.col. A small semantic difference, but just the way I like to write my SQL.
Now, a version that doesn't work... did you know that the ON clause can go in one of two places?
SELECT *
FROM [HumanResources].[EmployeeAddress] ea
JOIN [HumanResources].[Employee] e
JOIN [HumanResources].[EmployeeDepartmentHistory] edh ON e.[EmployeeID] = edh.[EmployeeID]
ON --***
Hit space before the *** comment and you'll get a column list rather than JOIN candidates. The ONs here are nested in the same order as the JOINs, so you should get a list of candidates for the JOIN between "e" and "ea". (Note, I absolutely *hate* this syntax, but I see it from time to time so I suppose it should be supported)
Now, another weird thing... What if I accidentally leave the ON below the JOINs?
SELECT *
FROM [HumanResources].[EmployeeAddress] ea
JOIN [HumanResources].[Employee] e ON --***
JOIN [HumanResources].[EmployeeDepartmentHistory] edh ON e.[EmployeeID] = edh.[EmployeeID]
ON
Again, hit space before the *** comment and it's broken... Until I do something like:
SELECT *
FROM [HumanResources].[EmployeeAddress] ea
JOIN [HumanResources].[Employee] e ON --***
JOIN [HumanResources].[EmployeeDepartmentHistory] edh ON e.[EmployeeID] = edh.[EmployeeID]
ON x
Some little bug in the parser, it seems? / comments
I can show you one version that doesn't work...
First, the following does work:
SELECT *
FROM [HumanResources].[EmployeeAddress] ea
JOIN [HumanResources].[Employee] e ON --***
JOIN [HumanResources]...
Also, try assigning default values to one or both params and then do:
SELECT dbo.rrr(def
... and the word "default" does not come up. / comments
Also, try assigning default values to one or both params and then do:
SELECT dbo.rrr(def
... and the word "default" does not come up.
Hi Bart,
I'm not sure what the issue is. Can't you just grab the system view columns from the sys.all_columns view? What's keeping you from doing so? / comments
Hi Bart,
I'm not sure what the issue is. Can't you just grab the system view columns from the sys.all_columns view? What's keeping you from doing so?
To be honest, I wish you hadn't told me about the line breaks in identifiers... it's one of those things I'm going to pretend I never heard (*puts hands over eyes and ears*) [image] / comments
To be honest, I wish you hadn't told me about the line breaks in identifiers... it's one of those things I'm going to pretend I never heard (*puts hands over eyes and ears*)
Aggressive isn't necessarily a bad thing. My biggest complaint right now is that I can't do the:
SELECT * FROM hum.
... and have it automatically select HumanResources and then immediately present a list of choices from there. That's how VS2005 works (at least, the C# intellisense, which in my opinion is by far the best I've ever worked with -- the VB intellisense in 2005 is crap IMO)... I still feel like the SQLPrompt intellisense is working against me just a bit instead of with me all the time. The VS intellisense pops up all the time, but I rarely feel like it's in my way (it does happen, but only maybe 1% of the time). With SQLPrompt, that number is currently around 25%, and then of course it's not even popping up sometimes when it should. So maybe you need it to be more aggressive, but at the same time a little bit smarter. / comments
Aggressive isn't necessarily a bad thing. My biggest complaint right now is that I can't do the:
SELECT * FROM hum.
... and have it automatically select HumanResources and then immediately present...
OK, I just checked, and yes, that's checked.
If I just hit "." after hitting [Enter] (when I select HumanResources from the candidates list), nothing happens. I don't get a list of tables until I do [Backspace], then type "." again...
By the way, some other weird behavior I just found:
Type:
SELECT * FROM hum.
(period after hum) -- A list of tables in the current database pops up, in alphabetical order. I personally don't think a candidate list makes sense there. Better would be that as soon as I hit ".", HumanResources is automatically selected and I'd see a list of tables in the schema -- that would be in-line with the way intellisense in VS works. / comments
OK, I just checked, and yes, that's checked.
If I just hit "." after hitting [Enter] (when I select HumanResources from the candidates list), nothing happens. I don't get a list of tables until I ...
That works -- pops up a correct list. / comments
That works -- pops up a correct list.
OK, I just tried again, and it's quite a bit better. Not sure what happened last time, as SSMS had been open for a while before I tried, but anyway...
What happens now:
SELECT *
FROM hum
-- get HumanResources
Hit [Enter]. Then type "."
-- get no tables [image]
Hit [Backspace]. Then type "." again
-- Now I get a list of tables...
So if you can just fix that extra [Backspace]/"." requirement, things will be very nice [image] / comments
OK, I just tried again, and it's quite a bit better. Not sure what happened last time, as SSMS had been open for a while before I tried, but anyway...
What happens now:
SELECT *
FROM hum
-- get Hu...
Comments are an interesting question... but what about strings / dynamic SQL? If this works:
/*
SELECT * FROM hum
*/
(brings up HumanResources in the AW database)
... then why shouldn't this work:
---
DECLARE @... VARCHAR(MAX)
SET @... = 'select * from hum'
---
I personally don't type a lot of SQL in comments, but I do a fairly large amount of work with dynamic SQL. / comments
Comments are an interesting question... but what about strings / dynamic SQL? If this works:
/*
SELECT * FROM hum
*/
(brings up HumanResources in the AW database)
... then why shouldn't this work:...
Sounds good, Bart. Good luck w/ completing this thing, and I hope to see you next week at PASS? / comments
Sounds good, Bart. Good luck w/ completing this thing, and I hope to see you next week at PASS?