Re: object naming conventions

On 1 Jul 2003 14:34:38 -0700, wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au (Nuno Souto) wrote:

>> Till now we let tables for different applications start with a
>> specific two character shortcut.
>
>Why?

Because we do not always have own schemas for them, what would be better.

>> is the one I waited for: The first time we now have to schemas which
>> need a public synonym of the same name. Ok, I will find a way...
>
>Do *not* use public synonyms. Create private ones as needed.

Yes, I know. But this gets complicated, if I want many (>50) Users let make use of my objects. Then I would have to create private synonym for each of them. It would be helpful, if one could put synonyms in something like a role, like it is done with the grants.

>> Is this better, if you read
>> statements to see, what really happens here, or is it not really
>> helpful for anything?
>
>It's *never* been helpful for anything. I never understood this
>"naming standard" thing. It reeks of the earlier DBMS systems
>where this sort of stuff was needed. With modern RDBMS systems,
>this hasn't been needed since the early 80s. Yet some people insist
>on "site naming standards" as if they are the only reason for
>their existence. Which is probably right...

But it is interesting, that many people use such conventions. For example, we have some tables and some sequences related to them. So here I think it makes sense to give them both the same names, but let the sequence start (or end) with an addition.

--
Martin Doering