Rule for initialisms within FROM clauses.

This is prompted by the excellent work of @piotrgredowski on #473 for #469.

The fishtown sql guide says:

Avoid table aliases in join conditions (especially initialisms) – it’s harder to understand what the table called “c” is compared to “customers”.

Which we have implemented a rule for which corrects:

SELECT u.id, c.first_name, c.last_name, COUNT(o.user_id)
FROM users as u
JOIN customers as c on u.id = c.user_id
JOIN orders as o on u.id = o.user_id

to

SELECT u.id, customers.first_name, customers.last_name, COUNT(orders.user_id)
FROM users as u
JOIN customers on u.id = customers.user_id
JOIN orders on u.id = orders.user_id

This is definitely in line with the letter of the law. What I’m wondering is whether initialisms in a FROM clause are also part of the same antipattern 🤔 . Should there be an additional rule to avoid initialisms in the FROM clause such that the full corrected query is:

SELECT users.id, customers.first_name, customers.last_name, COUNT(orders.user_id)
FROM users
JOIN customers on users.id = customers.user_id
JOIN orders on users.id = orders.user_id

I’m going to ask the fishtown guys what they think, but I’m curious for what other people think.

[I also think that @NiallRees will be amused by this suggestion because he’s seen a load of my production sql and knows that this is one of my bad habits]

[emilieschario]

I’m pretty confident that the answer here is aliases shouldn’t be used for the same reason as you don’t want it in join clauses.

[NiallRees]

I agree that motivation is the same - so I’ll just modify existing rule and reflect this modification in rule documentation. Edit: @NiallRees can you add hacktoberfest label to issue? 😃

From what I’ve read I’m meant to add it to the pull request now but I’ll add to both to make sure! Thanks!