Call a function without used dbo prefix

Hi all,
do you know if is it possible to call a function without the dbo prefix :
select dbo.myfunction : works fine
select myfunction : return an error message 'myfunction is not a recognize
function'
I've searched on permission right but unsuccessffuly ...
Thank's for your help.
Nicolas.On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 07:59:08 -0800, Nicolas Fortier <Nicolas
Fortier@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>Hi all,
>do you know if is it possible to call a function without the dbo prefix :
>select dbo.myfunction : works fine
>select myfunction : return an error message 'myfunction is not a recognize
>function'
>I've searched on permission right but unsuccessffuly ...
>Thank's for your help.
>Nicolas.
>
Hi Nicolas,
This is not possible. You must always include the owner of a userdefined
function.
Best, Hugo
--
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)|||"Hugo Kornelis" wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 07:59:08 -0800, Nicolas Fortier <Nicolas
> Fortier@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >do you know if is it possible to call a function without the dbo prefix :
> >
> >select dbo.myfunction : works fine
> >select myfunction : return an error message 'myfunction is not a recognize
> >function'
> >
> >I've searched on permission right but unsuccessffuly ...
> >
> >Thank's for your help.
> >
> >Nicolas.
> >
> Hi Nicolas,
> This is not possible. You must always include the owner of a userdefined
> function.
> Best, Hugo
> --
> (Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)
>
Hugo, thank's for your answer.
BR
Nicolas.|||"Hugo Kornelis" <hugo@.pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo> wrote in message
news:udo0s09hg55fna924ja8pavss40nqkekj1@.4ax.com...
> You must always include the owner of a userdefined function.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of a rationale for this? Seems
weird you don't have to include the owner of a stored procedure, but you do
have to include it for a UDF.|||On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:53:13 -0800, Mark Wilden wrote:
>"Hugo Kornelis" <hugo@.pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo> wrote in message
>news:udo0s09hg55fna924ja8pavss40nqkekj1@.4ax.com...
>> You must always include the owner of a userdefined function.
>Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of a rationale for this? Seems
>weird you don't have to include the owner of a stored procedure, but you do
>have to include it for a UDF.
>
Hi Mark,
No, never. If I have to take a guess, I'd say it was to limit the
complexity of parsing the SQL.
Best, Hugo
--
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)|||"Mark Wilden" <mark@.mwilden.com> wrote in message
news:iOydnelPJfeqFV3cRVn-ow@.sti.net...
> "Hugo Kornelis" <hugo@.pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo> wrote in message
> news:udo0s09hg55fna924ja8pavss40nqkekj1@.4ax.com...
> > You must always include the owner of a userdefined function.
> Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of a rationale for this? Seems
> weird you don't have to include the owner of a stored procedure, but you
do
> have to include it for a UDF.
>
Probably performance.
While you don't need to do it for stored procs, it's generally a good idea.
>|||To distinguish between user-defined functions and system functions.
e.g. imagine if you have a function called error_message(), then you upgrade
your database to Yukon and your application is getting invalid values over
the place.
If you have to use a prefix, there's no chance of the engine trying to tell
the difference...
"Mark Wilden" <mark@.mwilden.com> wrote in message
news:iOydnelPJfeqFV3cRVn-ow@.sti.net...
> "Hugo Kornelis" <hugo@.pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo> wrote in message
> news:udo0s09hg55fna924ja8pavss40nqkekj1@.4ax.com...
> > You must always include the owner of a userdefined function.
> Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of a rationale for this? Seems
> weird you don't have to include the owner of a stored procedure, but you
do
> have to include it for a UDF.
>|||"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:uD%23oq6x4EHA.1596@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> To distinguish between user-defined functions and system functions.
>
This doesn't really answer the question though.
What if you had a stored proc called error_message and then upgrade the
database to Yukon and your application is now calling the wrong stored proc
all over the place. :-)
(I think you're probably right, this has something to do with it, but why
wasn't this done for stored procs?)
> e.g. imagine if you have a function called error_message(), then you
upgrade
> your database to Yukon and your application is getting invalid values over
> the place.
> If you have to use a prefix, there's no chance of the engine trying to
tell
> the difference...
>
> "Mark Wilden" <mark@.mwilden.com> wrote in message
> news:iOydnelPJfeqFV3cRVn-ow@.sti.net...
> > "Hugo Kornelis" <hugo@.pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo> wrote in message
> > news:udo0s09hg55fna924ja8pavss40nqkekj1@.4ax.com...
> >
> > > You must always include the owner of a userdefined function.
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of a rationale for this?
Seems
> > weird you don't have to include the owner of a stored procedure, but you
> do
> > have to include it for a UDF.
> >
> >
>|||Hi All,
to solve my initial problem, is it possible to create a synonym (like with
oracle) to doesn't use the owner in a call fucntion ?
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
> "Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
> news:uD%23oq6x4EHA.1596@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > To distinguish between user-defined functions and system functions.
> >
> This doesn't really answer the question though.
> What if you had a stored proc called error_message and then upgrade the
> database to Yukon and your application is now calling the wrong stored proc
> all over the place. :-)
> (I think you're probably right, this has something to do with it, but why
> wasn't this done for stored procs?)
>
> > e.g. imagine if you have a function called error_message(), then you
> upgrade
> > your database to Yukon and your application is getting invalid values over
> > the place.
> >
> > If you have to use a prefix, there's no chance of the engine trying to
> tell
> > the difference...
> >
> >
> >
> > "Mark Wilden" <mark@.mwilden.com> wrote in message
> > news:iOydnelPJfeqFV3cRVn-ow@.sti.net...
> > > "Hugo Kornelis" <hugo@.pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo> wrote in message
> > > news:udo0s09hg55fna924ja8pavss40nqkekj1@.4ax.com...
> > >
> > > > You must always include the owner of a userdefined function.
> > >
> > > Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of a rationale for this?
> Seems
> > > weird you don't have to include the owner of a stored procedure, but you
> > do
> > > have to include it for a UDF.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>|||> What if you had a stored proc called error_message and then upgrade the
> database to Yukon and your application is now calling the wrong stored
proc
> all over the place. :-)
Well, system stored procedures are prefixed with sp_, and the documentation
clearly advises against using the same naming scheme for user-defined
procedures. So I think their bases are covered there.
It probably would have been better if a similar tack was taken with
functions, e.g. fn_ for system functions, and find your own naming scheme
for your own. (Though many of the built-in functions were created without
any specific naming scheme, long before UDFs were introduced. And there
would have been a lot of backlash if people had to go back and change
DB_NAME() to fn_DBNAME(), for example.)
If there are other reasons than those already brought up in this thread, I'm
not aware of them. I could make stuff up, but in either case, it's not
going to do you any good because the implementation is not going to
change...
A|||No synonyms in SQL Server 2000.
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Nicolas Fortier" <NicolasFortier@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:EA01FC2D-AACF-44F2-B7D6-F2929F5D2678@.microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> to solve my initial problem, is it possible to create a synonym (like
with
> oracle) to doesn't use the owner in a call fucntion ?
> "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
> > news:uD%23oq6x4EHA.1596@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > To distinguish between user-defined functions and system functions.
> > >
> >
> > This doesn't really answer the question though.
> >
> > What if you had a stored proc called error_message and then upgrade the
> > database to Yukon and your application is now calling the wrong stored
proc
> > all over the place. :-)
> >
> > (I think you're probably right, this has something to do with it, but
why
> > wasn't this done for stored procs?)
> >
> >
> > > e.g. imagine if you have a function called error_message(), then you
> > upgrade
> > > your database to Yukon and your application is getting invalid values
over
> > > the place.
> > >
> > > If you have to use a prefix, there's no chance of the engine trying to
> > tell
> > > the difference...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Mark Wilden" <mark@.mwilden.com> wrote in message
> > > news:iOydnelPJfeqFV3cRVn-ow@.sti.net...
> > > > "Hugo Kornelis" <hugo@.pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo> wrote in message
> > > > news:udo0s09hg55fna924ja8pavss40nqkekj1@.4ax.com...
> > > >
> > > > > You must always include the owner of a userdefined function.
> > > >
> > > > Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of a rationale for this?
> > Seems
> > > > weird you don't have to include the owner of a stored procedure, but
you
> > > do
> > > > have to include it for a UDF.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >|||Thank's for your answer.
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
> No synonyms in SQL Server 2000.
> --
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
> (Reverse address to reply.)
>
>
> "Nicolas Fortier" <NicolasFortier@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:EA01FC2D-AACF-44F2-B7D6-F2929F5D2678@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi All,
> >
> > to solve my initial problem, is it possible to create a synonym (like
> with
> > oracle) to doesn't use the owner in a call fucntion ?
> >
> > "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@.dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
> > > news:uD%23oq6x4EHA.1596@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > To distinguish between user-defined functions and system functions.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This doesn't really answer the question though.
> > >
> > > What if you had a stored proc called error_message and then upgrade the
> > > database to Yukon and your application is now calling the wrong stored
> proc
> > > all over the place. :-)
> > >
> > > (I think you're probably right, this has something to do with it, but
> why
> > > wasn't this done for stored procs?)
> > >
> > >
> > > > e.g. imagine if you have a function called error_message(), then you
> > > upgrade
> > > > your database to Yukon and your application is getting invalid values
> over
> > > > the place.
> > > >
> > > > If you have to use a prefix, there's no chance of the engine trying to
> > > tell
> > > > the difference...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Mark Wilden" <mark@.mwilden.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:iOydnelPJfeqFV3cRVn-ow@.sti.net...
> > > > > "Hugo Kornelis" <hugo@.pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo> wrote in message
> > > > > news:udo0s09hg55fna924ja8pavss40nqkekj1@.4ax.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > > You must always include the owner of a userdefined function.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of a rationale for this?
> > > Seems
> > > > > weird you don't have to include the owner of a stored procedure, but
> you
> > > > do
> > > > > have to include it for a UDF.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>