Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX) wrote: >"but when you have DBs with hundreds of tables, this can add up." > >Erm...that statement isn't true. The DB will probably work faster with grouped >tablenames over ad-hoc names. > > Really? I don't see why it would...
But I think Mike's point was from the visual aspect not server-side processing. I've got a couple of databases where I've tried this approach, using tbl for tables and lnk (link) for relationship and, to be honest, I wish I'd never bothered. I can find my link tables easy enough, but I always seem to manage to go straight past the table I actually wanted. Having said this, it was fine when I had capitalisation in the table names, but an export from one db to another kindly lower-cased all the table names and its a pain in the backside now. Andrew, I would go with that Oracle guideline page you found and adjust it to your requirements, then document it all up for the client. I don't believe there is a standard standard (as you might have noticed from all the points of view) for table and field name. Hope this helps Stephen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=11 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:181858 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
