Re: Naming Conventions?

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:35:21 GMT
Message-ID: <JwaXh.119278$DE1.40979@pd7urf2no>

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
> );
>
>

I'm with Bob B on this one, with emphasis on "understands well". Over the years, I've seen a great many people waste a lot of time on naming standards. Another thing I've seen within single organizations is one standard force-fitted on two applications, causing confusion for the long-time users of both apps. I suppose that might have been gotten around with with views, which makes me think that technocrats could have   views with one set of names and biz people could have another set. For development I always thought it was a good idea for an environment to implement alternative names outside of the dbms proper. Might be good for continuous regression testing as well prototyping.

This is my way of saying that most naming standards efforts I've seen were performed with an attitude that was somewhere between naive and puerile.

p Received on Mon Apr 23 2007 - 17:35:21 CDT