INSERT INTO - more reliable?

[SoftwareEng]

Hey guys,

In SQL Server there are 2 ways to do an INSERT: by listing column names, or by ommiting them:

INSERT INTO Table1 (Column1, Column2, Column3?)
VALUES (Value1, Value2, Value3?)

vs

INSERT INTO Table1
VALUES (value1, value2, value3?)

Which one is better? I am more concerned with readability, reliability, and ease of maintenance than performance.

Thank you!

 

[bsobel]

Including the column name is more portable since if you change the table layout your code doesnt break.

 

[Markbnj]

Agreed with bsobel. It's also more comprehensible and maintainable.

 

[htmlmasterdave]

Originally posted by: Markbnj
Agreed with bsobel. It's also more comprehensible and maintainable.

I also agree, I think it's good practice to avoid wildcards.

 

[Pacemaker]

I agree as well.

1) It reduces the chance of a mistake
2) It increases readability
3) It is much easier to make changes to
4) Changing the table doesn't break the insert.

 

[JACKDRUID]

INSERT INTO Table1
(Column1, Column2, Column3?) VALUES
(Value1, Value2, Value3?)

will improve readability

 

[SoftwareEng]

Thanks, guys!
You confirmed my assumptions.