Defining owner

[zircon06]

Just for good practice it is defining owner.procdure name is a good practice or not. If it is not good practice what are drawbacks.

Thanks in advance

 

[ptheriault]

In 2005 owner becomes schema. If you have objects of the same name but different schema(owner) then yes it is good practice to reference you objects with the two part naming convention. If you don't use schema's and everyone's default schema is dbo then there is no need to use the two part naming convention.

- Paul

- If at first you don't succeed, find out if the loser gets anything.

 

[mrdenny]

If you are dealing with SQL 2000 it is recommended to NOT have a user own objects. The reason is that if a user does own an object and the user leaves the company, when you go to remove the user from the server you can't because the user owns objects.

You would have to change the owner of the objects to another user then remove the user from the database. The problem is that now that the owner name has changed any and all code which points to the object has to be changed and QAed.

Denny
MCSA (2003) / MCDBA (SQL 2000)
MCTS (SQL 2005 / Microsoft Windows SharePoint Services 3.0: Configuration / Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007: Configuration)
MCITP Database Administrator (SQL 2005) / Database Developer (SQL 2005)

--Anything is possible. All it takes is a little research. (Me)

http://www.mrdenny.com

 

[zircon06]

Thanks you all the replies