Re: SQL Server 2000 Migrate to Oracle

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, hjr_at_dizwell.com wrote:

> I'll tell you what. If you disagree with me technically, stick
> to a technical discussion. We can have a meaningful debate
> about whether column names should be long and descriptive or
> not.

Please tell me how it is good database design that column names should be abbreviated, especially to < 5 characters? For me, it is not Oracle's job to tell me how long my column names should be, and it is annoying that they think they do. Maybe I want it both/multiple ways? Maybe I have 5 character table names and then I create a view with medium abbreviated column names and one with long column names, each catering to a particular audience.

And God knows, how many times is an answer on these newsgroups something akin to, "Well, it isn't Oracle's fault if you have faulty design, so don't go blaming the functionality when you implemented it poorly." I've read numerous answers from you of this flavor. Feel free to argue the good or bad of the design, but I'll have a hard time believing that limiting the number of characters is a data-modeling "blessing" brought to me by Larry.

It looks like they made a decision long ago, which at the time might have been a fine one, but today is an annoyance, at best.

-- 
Galen Boyer