On: SQL queries don't start with SELECT

[bena]

I really wish SQL syntax was in this order.

[knodi123 → bena]

Why do SQL clauses need to be ordered, anyway? Is there anything that would be impossible to parse if the order was not defined?

[cm2187 → knodi123]

To be logical to beginners. So that autocomplete can help you (which it cannot if it doesn't know what tables you are querying).

[wodenokoto → cm2187]

But the syntax is in the wrong order for autocomplete to help you.

If from was first, autocomplete could help you with the names of columns, like RStudio does with dplyr:

    data_frame_name %>% select(column_name)

Because you start by piping the data reference into your select function, RStudio can inspect the data and autocomplete the column names in the select statement, completely opposite of what is possible inSQL

With a free order, you'd be able to start SQL queries with `FROM table_name SELECT ...` and have columns autocompleted.

[cm2187 → wodenokoto]

Sorry, I didn't mean that in defense of SELECT being first. I agree with the article that SELECT must come toward the end. And the first thing I tell people I teach SQL to is that they have to read SELECT last.

[wodenokoto → cm2187]

Then I misunderstood you post.

[parshimers → bena]

Query languages that came after it that weren't concerned with compatibility realized this. XQuery has "for" first, which is to a first approximation FROM, and "return" last, which is like a more powerful SELECT. SQL++ and its brethren also had it this way very early on. However there's so many applications and users that are accustomed to it the original way, that it is not usually possible to fight against the inertia.

[tracker1 → bena]

Agreed... it feels a bit more natural. I actually like using the extension methods for LINQ in C# in a similar order (not the LINQ syntax itself though).

edit:

CTEs can make it closer to the syntax in question though.