Brian E Gallew <geek+@cmu.edu>
>Then <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> spoke up and said:
>> Keith Parks <emkxp01@mtcc.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> > Is there any reason for not allowing table aliases in
>> > delete statements?
>>
>> As Bruce points out in another followup, there's no real need for
>> an alias for the target table; if you have sub-selects that need
>> independent references to the target, you can always alias *them*.
>> The same goes for INSERT and UPDATE, which also take unadorned
>> <table name> as the target table specification.
>
>Unless your query is going to be long enough to run into query length
>limits, aliases are not your friends. Standard SQL they may be, but
>aliases always end up obscuring queries to those who come along after
>you.
The problem is that it's difficult to refer to the same table twice
in a single query without using aliases.
The trap I fell into was thinking I had to alias both references to
the table.
I'd be interested in seeing alternative solutions to the duplicate
removal problem.
Keith.
