I agree wholeheartedly with your second point. In theory, there should
be a table called "DISTRIBUTION" or something like that. Then,
(Customizations) = (Everything there is) - (DISTRIBUTION)
But in the absence of such a device, a naming convention will help.
(By the way, I think the term "naming convention" is more accurate than
"naming standard." The word "standard" somehow implies that a naming
rule is something more than voluntary. Organizationally, it may be
mandatory, but the computer doesn't care, which makes anyone's naming
decision--ultimately--voluntary.)
Cary Millsap
Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd.
http://www.hotsos.com
Upcoming events:
- NCOAUG Training Day, Aug 16 Chicago
- Miracle Database Forum, Sep 20-22 Middlefart Denmark
- 2003 Hotsos Symposium on OracleR System Performance, Feb 9-12 Dallas
-----Original Message-----
Rich
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 10:09 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Excellent point, Cary. I have seen a table with all 7 of it's index
names
suffixed with "_PK". Makes the monikor a bit useless, doesn't it? I
was
about to kindly chide the dev who created them, but I couldn't come up
with
a sane reason why we should spend all that time renaming indexes, when
an
outer join to a %_CONSTRAINTS view will tell the whole story.
I do, however, enforce a rule that says that any object we create in the
ERP
app schema of our 3rd-party ERP DB be prefixed with "QT" or "QT_". This
way, if we ever upgrade the app, I can very easily identify our custom
tables, indexes, triggers, etc for recreation. Likewise, all the other
schemas we add to this DB are prefixed as well.
Rich Jesse System/Database Administrator
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Quad/Tech International, Sussex, WI
USA
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cary Millsap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 9:03 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: RE: Table Naming Conventions
>
>
> I don't like such prefixes because they make it easier to lie or make
> mistakes. I've seen people try for hours to figure out why something
> doesn't make sense, only to find out that the index whose
> name has a 'U'
> in it actually wasn't created with the "UNIQUE" attribute.
>
> Names falsely cause reliance that cannot be trusted. Making reports on
> such things easier to run is, to my mind, a better idea than
> integrating
> too much information into naming standards.
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: Jesse, Rich
INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: Cary Millsap
INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
