From: Neil W on
Is there any difference in executing a stored procedure this way:
exec master.dbo.xp_cmdshell
versus this way?
exec master..xp_cmdshell

They both seem to work, but are there implications I need to know about?

Thanks.




From: Neil W on
Of course I meant "extended stored procedure", not "stored procedure".


From: Aaron Bertrand on
I prefer to use the .dbo. prefix in the middle. If they ever change the
behavior (e.g. move xp's to the sys schema), you are going to have to change
your code in either case. What benefit do you see from the .. syntax,
except that you don't have to type three characters?

I prefer being explicit in any case - making this a consistent habit and
convention in your system will help you avoid pitfalls in cases where the
schema prefix *does* matter. I recently wrote a bog post about this:
http://is.gd/4xSjt





On 10/23/09 11:15 AM, in article utq5aO$UKHA.1232(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl,
"Neil W" <neilw(a)netlib.com> wrote:

> Is there any difference in executing a stored procedure this way:
> exec master.dbo.xp_cmdshell
> versus this way?
> exec master..xp_cmdshell
>
> They both seem to work, but are there implications I need to know about?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>

From: TheSQLGuru on
You should ALWAYS use the owner (2000-) or schema (2005+) to reference ANY
object in sql server. 1) it avoids internal lookups and 2) you can actually
get the WRONG data if accessing a table depending on duplicate names and
your default schema.

--
Kevin G. Boles
Indicium Resources, Inc.
SQL Server MVP
kgboles a earthlink dt net


"Neil W" <neilw(a)netlib.com> wrote in message
news:utq5aO$UKHA.1232(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Is there any difference in executing a stored procedure this way:
> exec master.dbo.xp_cmdshell
> versus this way?
> exec master..xp_cmdshell
>
> They both seem to work, but are there implications I need to know about?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>