# Is the extended tag path format for history queries documented?

**URL:** <https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/is-the-extended-tag-path-format-for-history-queries-documented/96730>\
**Category:** Ignition\
**Tags:** perspective\
**Created:** [October 2, 2024, 7:08pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/is-the-extended-tag-path-format-for-history-queries-documented/96730 "2024-10-02T19:08:15Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pturmel](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/pturmel/32/3295_2.png) [@pturmel](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/pturmel)\
**Post date:** [October 2, 2024, 7:31pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/is-the-extended-tag-path-format-for-history-queries-documented/96730/2 "2024-10-02T19:31:53Z")

</div>

Brief description here:

> [@Historian Tag Path Syntax Format](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/historian-tag-path-syntax-format/94617):
>
> I am laying out some foundational work. I came across two valid syntax of Historian Tag Path: short version: DB\_GW\_A01/gw\_maker:default]wm01 long version: histprov:DB\_GW\_A01:/drv:gw\_maker:default:/tag:wm01 From your experience. Which one is more acceptable?

The form you show is how you use Ignition's `TagPath` objects to escape the implicit history provider defaults for a given tag provider. The "long form" linked is what you get when using Ignition's more modern `QualifiedPath` objects.

Note that `db_name` should really be `hist_prov_name`, as it could be a 3rd party historian.

And yeah, the docs are terrible on this subject.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/is-the-extended-tag-path-format-for-history-queries-documented/96730)._