Re: SQL Server 2000 Migrate to Oracle

On 30 Aug 2004 12:15:06 -0500, Galen Boyer <galenboyer_at_hotpop.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, holger.baer_at_science-computing.de wrote:
>> Galen Boyer wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>>Here's an attribute name:
>>>>>
>>>>> financial information submission failure penalty
>>>>>
>>>>>This is spec'd out by the business I'm the datamodeler for,
>>>>>but I guess I'm in a ridiculous business, just like the OP
>>>>>cause my database doesn't support that name? I abbreviated
>>>>>it to, finclinfsubmfailpnlty. I kind of think the fully
>>>>>spelled out version is easier to understand.
>>
>> But its hell if you ever have to type it in (and I'm not
>> exactly slow with the keyboard). IMO, that's why Oracle
>> 'invented' comments. Full descriptiv, easy to understand. But
>> you never but once have to type them in.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I can beat your crypticness. I can create a single character
>>> UNIX script, q.sh, which will solve everybody's needs. Sign
>>> of a good lazy programmer. But, not all that descriptive,
>>> that's for sure.
>>
>> On the other hand you didn't mention that you'd put a man page
>> at the top of q.sh wich would tell everyone interested what
>> parameters q.sh would take and what they did to the outcome ;-)
>>
>> [...]
>>> I do it to help the development effort, not the end users. It
>>> certainly helps me when I do a desc on a table, even when I
>>> designed the table.
>>
>> Again, that's what comments are for (and they are highly
>> underused IMO).
>>
>>>
>>>>And I know a lot of people who would get ticked off with the
>>>>'Tbl' part of that name.
>>> Let em get ticked.
>>
>> Oh, and don't forget to put a silly abbreviation of the
>> tablename as prefix to every single column of the table. If god
>> didn't want us to type at least 100 chars for a simple '2
>> columns of a table select' he wouldn't have given us
>> keyboards... or 10 fingers come to that ;-)
>>
>>> Okay, if thats supposedly the argument. Is it actually
>>> written somewhere, "Though shalt not have > 30 characters ..."
>>
>> Unfortunately AFAIK it's not. But about time as far as I'm
>> concerned.
>
>None of your arguments are based on anything but convenience,
>which is what my argument is, as well. So, we can argue who has
>the more convenient development environment, which is fine, but,
>I don't see anything about sound database design theory anywhere.
>
>So, once again, did this limitation come from Oracle blessing us
>with what is most convenient?

If you would only read appendix A of the SQL reference called 'Database limits' you would know, and start barking at the correct tree.
AFAIK I don't see any advantage in having identifiers longer than 30. And I don't think the limit can be lifted as it has impact on the physical database structure.

--
Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA