Re: Is this really necessary?

I have never heard that short field or table names made a performance difference. This is a new myth. Have them prove it with an example.

I agree names should be descriptive. You are right. Jim
"Daniel Hinojosa" <dhinojosa_at_qwest.net> wrote in message news:3B71FA48.F5A51FD8_at_qwest.net...
> I have some questions.
>
> Is there a performance gain by keeping field names and table names to a
> minimum of 10 characters or 8 characters? Particularly in an Oracle
> environment?
>
> Is there a logistical advantage (e.g. maintenance, indexing,
> scalability, etc.) by keeping field names and table names to a miniumum
> set of characters?
>
> Is there any advantage gained by naming fields with the convention
> tablename_field (e.g. ACCTCD_ID, ACCTCD_NM, etc), while keeping the
> field name to the minimum amount of characters that I explained above?
>
> Being a java programmer, I love descriptive names. Not too long to
> choke, but just long enough to get the idea across (e.g. firstName,
> lastName, favoriteColor). The above database naming scheme was proposed
> and I am against the idea. I am writing to you for a second opinion.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks in advance.
> Dan
>
Received on Thu Aug 09 2001 - 07:43:34 CEST