Re: Plural or singular table names
From: Karsten Wutzke <kwutzke-blahblah_at_starconcept.de>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 18:14:39 +0200
Message-ID: <bjku9g$9i4$03$1_at_news.t-online.com>
>
> standards
>
>
>
> I see a lot more authors (like Celko) go with the plural as the tables
> hold multiple instances.
>
>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 18:14:39 +0200
Message-ID: <bjku9g$9i4$03$1_at_news.t-online.com>
TenKMan wrote:
> "Ray Cassick (home)" <raycassNOSPAM_at_adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:4qf4b.11737$Nc.6608551_at_news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
>>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 see a lot more authors (like Celko) go with the plural as the tables
> hold multiple instances.
>
>
Whereas from a practical point of view, most of the "links" a.k.a. foreign keys relate to single entities, so logically, you deal with those... that's why I prefer singular names. Taking plural names is somewhat duh, because a database will almost always contain many entities, so one should never see singular names...
Surely everyone has his/her own opinion on this, but I don't have to adapt experts' opinions on everything.
Karsten Received on Tue Sep 09 2003 - 18:14:39 CEST