Re: Is this really necessary?

Answers embedded

Hth,

Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA

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?

No
>
> Is there a logistical advantage (e.g. maintenance, indexing,
> scalability, etc.) by keeping field names and table names to a miniumum
> set of characters?

Less chance of getting RSI :)
>
> 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?

No that is why table aliases were invented
>
> 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?

I'm now working in a situation where the case tool imposes a limit of 6!!!! characters for tables and columns, and you also seem to be forced to use a 2 character fixed prefix in your table name and your column names.
Needless to say almost all column names are fully incomprehensible.
>
> Thanks in advance.
> Dan
Received on Thu Aug 09 2001 - 09:31:46 CEST