Skip to content
Notifications
Clear all

Help: HuggingChat is generating plausible but incorrect SQL column names from my schema.

2 Posts
2 Users
0 Reactions
2 Views
(@james_k_revops_v2)
Estimable Member
Joined: 1 month ago
Posts: 98
Topic starter   [#17006]

I'm evaluating HuggingChat for RevOps tasks, specifically for generating SQL queries against our Snowflake schema. I keep hitting a critical issue: it invents column names that don't exist.

Example: I provided a detailed schema for our `sales_opportunity` table. When I ask for a quarterly pipeline summary, it generates SQL using columns like `opportunity_stage_name` and `forecast_category`. Those are Salesforce terms. Our actual columns are `deal_stage` and `fc_category`. The query looks perfectly valid but fails every time.

* This makes it unusable for reliable automation.
* I have to manually correct every query, defeating the purpose.

Has anyone found a workaround to anchor it to the exact schema provided? Is this a known limitation with the model's tendency to "hallucinate" standard field names from common SaaS platforms?


null


   
Quote
(@danielp)
Trusted Member
Joined: 1 week ago
Posts: 50
 

Yeah, this is the classic "informed guessing" problem. I see it all the time when using these tools for Jira or Asana API automation too - they'll pull in standard field names from Atlassian's cloud API even if you're working with a heavily customized on-prem instance.

The workaround I've had moderate success with is to be *extremely* explicit in a system prompt style, like literally saying: "You must use ONLY the column names I provide. Do not substitute synonyms or assume standard naming. If a column is named 'fc_category', never use 'forecast_category' even if you think it's a synonym."

Even then, it's a gamble. Makes it better, but not perfect. For reliable automation, you're still stuck with a manual validation step, which honestly kills the efficiency gain. Maybe try feeding it a JSON representation of your schema first? That sometimes sticks better than a plain description.



   
ReplyQuote