Re: Naming Conventions?
- From: Bob Badour <bbadour@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:30:30 GMT
Karen Hill wrote:
On Apr 23, 3:15 pm, Bob Badour <bbad...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
);
Who considers hungarian notation bad? And why?
aside:
Does anybody remember when the hungarian space program gets off the ground? Is that this year or next?
/aside
SQL has too many standards. Camel case to separate words doesn't make a whole lot of sense for case insensitive names.
From a theoretical standpoint, names are rather unimportant. Naming conventions are all about applied human psychology and are more closely related to information architecture than database theory.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Naming Conventions?
- From: Alfredo Novoa
- Re: Naming Conventions?
- From: Andy Dingley
- Re: Naming Conventions?
- From: paul c
- Re: Naming Conventions?
- From: paul c
- Re: Naming Conventions?
- References:
- Naming Conventions?
- From: Karen Hill
- Re: Naming Conventions?
- From: Bob Badour
- Re: Naming Conventions?
- From: Karen Hill
- Naming Conventions?
- Prev by Date: Re: delete cascade
- Next by Date: Re: Naming Conventions?
- Previous by thread: Re: Naming Conventions?
- Next by thread: Re: Naming Conventions?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|