Re: 3NF question

From: Paul <paul_at_test.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:44:48 +0000
Message-ID: <41e58c41$0$16974$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>

David Cressey wrote:
> First, there's the classical way, already illustrated by Joe Celko. If you
> name the columns "EMPLOYEE_ID" and "TRUCK_ID", the situation can't happen.

The problem I have with this is that it seems somehow redundant to name everything in the employee table as employee_id, employee_name, employee_salary, etc. I know it's in the employee table already, so why append the word "employee" to all the column names?

I guess the problem is when you have foreign keys to id columns in other tables. Well maybe then you could have id_dept or something. Though it might mess up "natural joins", but then maybe they aren't that good an idea anyway.

I'm not sure what the answer is to the whole naming question, but can't the column name "id" be interpreted in the context of the name of the table in which it appears?

Paul. Received on Wed Jan 12 2005 - 14:44:48 CST