zlacker

>>heyden+(OP)
Is there research on what is easier to read when you are sifting through many queries?

I like the syntax for reading what the statement expects to output first, even though I agree that I don’t write them select first. I feel like this might be optimizing the wrong thing.

Although the example is nice, it does not show 20 tables joined first, which will really muddle it.

>>rileym+jV9
The select list is meaningless without everything that follows. Knowing that a query selects "id, "date" tells you nothing without knowing the table, the search criteria, etc.

>>beart+C0a
That's one benefit of the SQL naming convention which would use names like e.g. customer_id, invoice_date, etc. Also, when joining tables (depending on the SQL dialect) that can allow a shortcut synax, JOIN ON field_name, if the field name in the two tables is the same.