php newbie (ne**********@yahoo.com) writes:
I have a quick question on how to qualify table names as it relates to
"dbo" vs. user names. Suppose that I am a user named "dwuser1", and
that I need to create a table named "dw_stage_1". Do I use dbo as in
"dbo.dw_stage_1" or do I use "dwuser1.dw_stage_1" for the qualified
table name? Are both OK? If so, what would be the implications of
each?
If you are user dwuser1, and you have CREATE TABLE permissions, and
you say:
CREATE TABLE dw_stage_1 (a int NOT NULL)
The full qualification for that table will be dwuser1.dw_stage_1. You
cannot refer to the table as dbo.dw_stage_1. As dwuser1 you can refer
to the table as dw_stage_1 and dwuser1.dw_stage_1. All other users,
including dbo, must refer to ut as dwuser1.dw_stage_1.
If you then log in as sa or any other login that map to dbo and say
CREATE TABLE dw_stage_1 (a int NOT NULL)
again, you have now created to dw_stage_1. As dbo you can refer to the
table as dbo.dw_stage_1 or dw_stage_1 only, and so can all other users
except for dwuser1, who must use dbo.dw_stage_1, since his only table
is ahead in the seatch path.
Best practice recommended my Microsoft is to refer to the table as
dbo.dw_stage_1. This is particularly important for loose SQL statements,
since SQL Server then can skip the search for user.dw_stage_1. They
say that this is also good in stored procedure, but in my opinion,
the dbo. becomes a four-letter line noice in a procedure that is owned
by dbo.
As for when to use objects not owned by dbo - beats me. I say, keep it
simple and only use dbo.
(In SQL 2005 where users and schema are separated, it's another story.)
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP,
es****@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...2000/books.asp 
