Re: Plural or singular table names

"Ray Cassick (home)" <raycassNOSPAM_at_adelphia.net> wrote in message news:RVA4b.18324$Nc.6997884_at_news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> "Larry Coon" <lmcoon_at_nospam_cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3F521C3E.59DA_at_nospam_cox.net...
> > Ray Cassick (home) wrote:
> >
> > > Well my company is going through its processes of writing company
> standards
> > > documents and we are at the age old question:
> > >
> > > "Should table names be in the plural or singular forms?"
> > >
> > > I figured that I would get a feel here for what the general consensus
is
> > > from the group.
> > >
> > > I am from the school that says plural because the table holds
multiples
> of
> > > one thing. A table that holds employee information should be called
> > > Employees.
> > >
> > > Some of the members of the group here simply think that the table
should
> not
> > > be treated as holding a group of employees, but rather it should be
> treated
> > > as simply a place that contains information about THE employee.
> >
> > First of all, let's clarify the context. Are you talking
> > about relational database systems?
> >
> Yes, I am. Both MS SQL and Oracle for now.
>
> > If so, in an RDBMS a table represents a SET. The table that
> > holds employee information represents the set of employees.
> >
> > It's always been my opinion that plural table names confuse
> > the set with its contents. The employees are the contents
> > of the set. They are many, so they are plural. But the set
> > itself is singluar. There is only one set of employees -- the
> > employee set is a set of employees. Confusing a set with the
> > contents of the set is akin to confusing a table with a row.
> >
> > Since the table name refers to the table, and the table is a
> > set, and the set (not the contents, but the set itself) is
> > singular, then the table name should be singular.
> >
> Well I have to say that was probably the best explination I have seen as
to
> WHY to go singular.
>
> > > If someone can point me to a definitive standard (if one does exist) I
> would
> > > be most grateful.
> >
> > I don't know if one exists. I think it's mainly a religious
> > argument. However, I don't think I've ever seen my argument
> > above debunked.
> >
> The explaination is very good. I can't belive that there is not some
> standard set otu for this yet. There is for practiclly everythign else.

The problem is not a lack of standards. The problem is too many standards. Both standards exist and both have arguments pro and con.

As I mentioned ages ago, from a theory perspective, the name is unimportant. Its only function is to name. Any contextually unique symbol will do. From a theory perspective, X and Y are as good as any other name as is any meaningless sequence of characters like A62Y32HPQ3.

Apparently, Larry did not recognize the debunking of his argument.

Arguments for and against different conventions amount to aesthetic arguments. Since aestheticism resembles religion in requiring no rational justification, aesthetic arguments resemble religious arguments. There is no accounting for taste.

That said, I like Tony Douglas's suggestion to choose a convention to encourage people to think of relations in terms of the predicate calculus because I find that specific cognitive bias the most revealing one. Others will like other suggestions because the they find other things appealing.

Any claim to have an objective argument for one's prejudices and preferences is bunk. Received on Mon Sep 01 2003 - 19:10:14 CEST