Re: Naming Conventions?

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:30:30 GMT
Message-ID: <asaXh.27440$PV3.286352@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Karen Hill wrote:

> On Apr 23, 3:15 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>

>>Karen Hill wrote:
>>
>>>What do you believe is the best naming convention for tables, columns,
>>>schemas and why?
>>
>>The one that everybody in the organization understands well. For obvious
>>reasons.

>
> So there are no standards in SQL for naming? In programming languages
> there are hungarian notation (now considered bad), Camel Case, Pascal
> Case etc.
>
> For example Hungarian notation applied to SQL would look thusly:
>
> CREATE TABLE tblOrders
> (
> colOrderNumber INT
> colPrimaryKey INT PRIMARY KEY
> );

Who considers hungarian notation bad? And why?

aside:
Does anybody remember when the hungarian space program gets off the ground? Is that this year or next?
/aside

SQL has too many standards. Camel case to separate words doesn't make a whole lot of sense for case insensitive names.

 From a theoretical standpoint, names are rather unimportant. Naming conventions are all about applied human psychology and are more closely related to information architecture than database theory. Received on Mon Apr 23 2007 - 17:30:30 CDT