Re: Naming Conventions?

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:05:42 GMT
Message-ID: <aZaXh.27451$PV3.286537@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
> );

P.S. The above bears little to no resemblance to hungarian notation.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa260976(VS.60).aspx

As it happens, the original hungarian notation doesn't cover INT types per se referring instead to machine words, which doesn't really work for a dbms in a heterogeneous environment.

I am also a little confused why an orders relation would have what appear to be two simple, integer keys. Replacing a familiar, simple, stable, unique and irreducible key with an unfamiliar key seems quite stupid to me. Received on Mon Apr 23 2007 - 18:05:42 CDT