Niall Litchfield wrote:
> Timasmith wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 5:57 am, "William Robertson" <williamr2..._at_googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Feb 18, 5:25 pm, "Timasmith" <timasm..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In 10g is Oracle past the 30 character limit for table names and
>>>> columns?
>>> No, thank goodness. Let's hope it stays that way.
>> Well I think one day they should increase, I liken it to DOS and 8
>> character filenames. When you build large information systems with
>> 100's, even thousands of tables it becomes rather annoying for users
>> to have to guess the spelling. It also forces an ugly naming
>> convention as the logical domain prefixes are forced from 'words' to
>> '3 character prefixes that suck'.
>>
>
> I wonder what limit you would increase it to?
> I personally would object to a table called
It seems like the industry is settling for 128.
When you introduce UTF-8 to the mix and you are a Japanese customer 30
bytes can get quite tight.
The argument for long names being made to me (which I accept) is that
especially for secondary objects such as INDEX and TRIGGER folsk liek to
have descriptive names:
Eg. for an index: <tbname>_IDX_<list of columns>
or a trigger: <tbname>_TRG<BEF/AFT><ROW/STMT><operation><purpose>
So it adds up...
And yes it is a lot of tedious work and can't be sold to the marketing
guys. :-(
Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Received on Wed Feb 21 2007 - 07:05:32 CST
