Re: Plural or singular table names
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 14:19:02 +0100
Message-ID: <MPG.19cd29a1dbdfe45989757_at_news1.eircom.net>
joe.celko_at_northface.edu says...
> >> I see a lot more authors (like Celko) go with the plural as the
> tables hold multiple instances. <<
> Or collective nouns:
> Employee = bad
> Employees = Better
> Personnel = Good
Why is Personnel better than Employees? Are you talking about people who might work for the entity but not be paid (as an example, I am writing a system for An Óige, the Irish youth hostel organisation and there are some volunteer workers there)? How about if it's only a table to do with pay?
Suppose that you have a table called "Employee_who_died_on_duty" - ideally you want no entries in that table (OK, so a better example would be something like "System_Crashed" or whatever) - so would you give that a plural name or what?
> Tree = bad
> Trees = Better
> Forest = Good
Again, I fail to see why. A collection (set) of trees is not necessarily a forest, but a forest is by definition a set of trees?
Paul...
-- plinehan__AT__yahoo__DOT__com C++ Builder 5 SP1, Interbase 6.0.1.6 IBX 5.04Received on Sat Sep 13 2003 - 15:19:02 CEST