Re: Naming Conventions?
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 03:26:52 +0200
Message-ID: <462eadb6$0$324$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
>
> Karen:
>
> As for naming tables, I'd say their name should correspond to the
> entity they implement/describe, subject of course to your target
> RDBMS's object-name-length restrictions. Simple as that.
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 03:26:52 +0200
Message-ID: <462eadb6$0$324$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
jefftyzzer wrote:
> Karen Hill wrote:
>> What do you believe is the best naming convention for tables, columns, >> schemas and why?
>
> Karen:
>
> As for naming tables, I'd say their name should correspond to the
> entity they implement/describe, subject of course to your target
> RDBMS's object-name-length restrictions. Simple as that.
Make sense. This is a non-trivial task, benefiting from peer-review.
> For column names, I've generally followed the PRIME WORD - MODIFIER -
> CLASS WORD convention, e.g., LOAN_ORIGINATION_DATE. In addition to a
> predefined (but expandable) list of class words, most such naming
> standards also include a predefined (but again able to be added-to)
> list of approved acronyms, and the injunction that no token of less
> than, say, four characters be abbreviated.
Hope this helps: do NOT enforce context in names: it leads to not being able to move from one context to another without renaming. Received on Wed Apr 25 2007 - 03:26:52 CEST