RE: Schema Naming Standards

From: Jeff Smith <>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 15:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <8ffcb93e-0865-459f-bcb0-8b8374d6d3ea_at_default>

I know of some in the SQL space that think that tables should end in _TABLE and views in _VIEW.




But that’s a purely subjective response, not discounting our current 30 character limit for object names.


From: Mark J. Bobak [] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 6:31 PM
To:; Subject: Re: Schema Naming Standards


Trying to start a religious war here, eh?  :-)

Seriously, whatever standard you pick, stick with it. 

In my opinion, having the app owner schema name end in _USER seems counterintuitive to me, but what do I know?

In my limited experience, we had the app owner schema named after the product, batch programs logged in as users whose names were related to the subsystem they were associated with, and end users had logins that were first initial and last name.



On Tue, May 26, 2015, 5:31 PM Jeff Chirco <HYPERLINK ""> wrote:

I was wondering if others have a naming standard for application schemas.  Like do you had a prefix or suffix?  It was started before I got to this company that all schemas end in "_USER" and then I later added a "_APP" for application logins to separate schemas that owned the objects and what the application logs in as.  So for example for a Payroll program the schema would be PAYROLL_USER instead of just PAYROLL.

We are starting up a new database for a big system and the developers had asked to drop the _USER. The _APP will not be needed since users will log in directly to this particular database.

I am open to the idea but was wondering what is common? Part of my concern is that one database will be different than others but really the _USER serves no purpose.

Thanks in advanced.


-- Received on Wed May 27 2015 - 00:44:20 CEST

Original text of this message