Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Naming Convention for Columns
Hello all,
We are setting up new database naming conventions, and I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on what they consider to be important considerations.
In particular, I'd like to know how people feel about prefixing the names of columns in a relational data base with a short prefix representing the table to which the column belongs. (Foreign keys would retain the prefix of the foreign table, i.e., the table being referred to. This would also be true for denormalized, redundant data: the redundant columns would carry the prefix of the "owner"/master table.) The lead developer for this project is strongly in favor of using such prefixes; they were used here in the past in the DBAM data base being replaced. He likes not having to specify the name of the table when he mentions the column in code, and also feels that the prefix helps remind the developer/user of which table they're working with.
I prefer not to use such prefixes. The reasons I have given are:
What other arguments can be made for or against these column prefixes?
BTW, our primary development data base is Sybase, but we have (and will have, I'm sure) others (Oracle, MS Access, et al); I'd like to address this globally.
Thanks!
David Mullen *** Any opinions expressed are mine, and not *** Emjay Corporation *** necessarily those of Emjay Corporation. *** Milwaukee, WI dave.mullen_at_emjay.com ==> Kyrie eleison <== Fight spam by joining CAUCE - Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email http://www.cauce.org/Received on Thu Mar 05 1998 - 00:00:00 CST