>> What's wrong with family_group being aliased as FG, or >> clients being >> aliased as C, or employee being aliased as E? Seems to >> make perfect >> sense to me. >> >> --Ferg
> Readability > famGrp is obvious FG is not > clnt is obvious C is not > emp is obvious E is not > OK...I'm done > There is nothing "technically" wrong with using > meaningless (or so short they > are meaningless) aliases, but it sure makes life simpler > ;-) I've never had a problem with them, because the context is right in front of me... That is to say, the query is generally a self contained article of only a few lines and the source of that "C" is right in front of me. With very large queries with lots of tables, then I agree, it's easier to read with more descriptive aliases, but for short queries with only 2-5 tables, I don't see a problem. I also will lengthen the alias if there are two tables that compete for a given character, such as if I have a category table and a client table in the same query, then I'll definately use cat and clnt. How many people here don't use single-character table aliases only because Microsoft uses them in their system views? :) s. isaac dealey 434.293.6201 new epoch : isn't it time for a change? add features without fixtures with the onTap open source framework http://www.fusiontap.com http://coldfusion.sys-con.com/author/4806Dealey.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:236722 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
