[taeric]

I'd assume they would ask for "aggregate sales by month to zip codes," or some such. Which, you'd probably get from a reporting table, and not bother trying to do the manual aggregate over transactional data. (That is, OLAP versus OLTP is a very real divide that you can't wave away.)

Realistically, I strongly suspect you could take this argument either direction. If you have someone making a query where they are having to ask "what all tables could I start from?" you are in for some pain. Often the same data is reachable from many tables, and you almost certainly have reasons for taking certain paths to get to it. Similarly, if they should want "person_name", heaven help them.

Such that, can you contrive scenarios where it makes sense to start the query from the from clause? Sure. My point is more that you almost certainly have the entire query conceptualized in your mind as you start. You might not remember all of the details on how some things are named, but the overall picture is there. Question then comes down to if one way is more efficient than the other? I have some caveats that this is really a thing hindered by the order of the query. We don't have data, of course, and are arguing based on some ideas that we have brought with us.

So, would I be upset if the order was reversed? Not at all. I just don't expect that would actually help much. My memory is using query builders in the past where I would search for "all tables that have customer_id and order_id in them" and then, "which table has customer_id and customer_address" and then... It was rarely (ever?) the name of the table that helped me know which one to use. Rather, I needed the ones with the columns I was interested in.

[shkkmo]

Your approach only works with massive assumptions about the structure of the data or a very simplistic data structure.

SELECT statments don't just use table names, they can use aliases for those table names, views, subqueries, etc.

The FROM / JOIN blocks are where the structure of the data your are selecting from is defined. You should not assume you understand what a SELECT statement means until you have read those blocks.

[necovek]

As GP said, you can take this both ways.

I can define the return format of my query in the SELECT statement, then adapt the data structure in the FROM block using subselects, aliases etc — all to give me the shape desired for the query.

If you've ever done complex querying with SQL, you'd know that you'd go back and forth on all parts of the query to get it right unless you knew the relations by heart, regardless of the order (sometimes you'll have to rework the FROM because you changed the SELECT is the point).

[shkkmo]

> As GP said, you can take this both ways.

You can, but one of those ways is objectively worse for the reasons explained in this thread and in the article.

When you have to read a query out of order to understand it then something is wrong with the structure of the query language.

[Izkata]

And the objectively worst way is to put the SELECT in the middle, because it ignores the relationship between the query and the rest of the code that interacts with it, making it more difficult to read - and reading the code is done a lot more than writing the code.