Re: object naming conventions

"andrewst" <member14183_at_dbforums.com> wrote in message news:3065841.1057140903_at_dbforums.com...

>
> Originally posted by Martin Doering
> > 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.
> >
> Naming table-related objects in a way that clearly links them to the
> table is helpful; and the easiest way to do that is with prefixes or
> suffixes like "SEQ_", "_PK" etc.

Personally, I favour suffixes. It's objects associated with table, they shouldn't prefix the table name. So I get *_PK, *_SEQ, *_VW, *_UKn, *_OT. But that's about it and only in small doses!

> But giving the tables themselves a
> prefix like "T_" or the disgusting VB-like names such as "tblEmployee"
> is totally unhelpful and extremely irritating. IMHO.

And my preferred pet peeve: prefixing the column names with table abbreviation. Duh!...

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam