Re: SQL Server 2000 Migrate to Oracle

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, sybrandb_at_hccnet.nl wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2004 12:15:06 -0500, Galen Boyer
> <galenboyer_at_hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>>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.

Okay,

Didn't find where Oracle describes why the limit is actually imposed, but I did find the following:

    Schema Object Naming Guidelines

    Here are several helpful guidelines for naming objects and     their parts:

    Use full, descriptive, pronounceable names (or well-known     abbreviations). Use consistent naming rules. Use the same     name to describe the same entity or attribute across tables.     When naming objects, balance the objective of keeping names     short and easy to use with the objective of making names as     descriptive as possible. When in doubt, choose the more     descriptive name, because the objects in the database may be     used by many people over a period of time. Your counterpart     ten years from now may have difficulty understanding a table     column with a name like pmdd instead of payment_due_date.     

    Using consistent naming rules helps users understand the part     that each table plays in your application. One such rule     might be to begin the names of all tables belonging to the     FINANCE application with fin_.

    Use the same names to describe the same things across     tables. For example, the department number columns of the     sample employees and departments tables are both named     deptno.

Howard, you said to me that you would have chosen a much shorter abbrev for my example attribute. What say you now?

-- 
Galen Boyer