Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Naming Conventions?

Re: Naming Conventions?

From: Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: 23 Apr 2007 21:17:14 -0700
Message-ID: <1177388234.005657.193090@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>


On Apr 23, 3:22 pm, Karen Hill <karen_hil..._at_yahoo.com> 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 really really dislike putting the kind of the thing in the name. I'm not PersonMarshall, I'm just Marshall. The table that has all the customer data should be called Customers, not TCustomers or T_Customers or tblCustomers. Bletch!

I don't name my Java classes with the word "class" in them.

Also bad: using the "-info" suffix. *Everything* in the computer is info!

CamelCase looks pretty good to me, but that's just personal taste. Project-wide consistency is better than trying to impose someone's aesthetic ideas.

I like plural for table names, because tables are collections.

I like id numbers to end in "-Id" rather than "PrimaryKey" or anything like that.

These are all subjective, though.

Marshall Received on Mon Apr 23 2007 - 23:17:14 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US