eten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 10:30 AM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: Re: Field Naming
>
>
>Tangorre, Michael wrote:
>>From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
>>>
>>> Again, its all personal choice. I usually steer well clear
>>
> The are so many options on which styles to follow, the approach I
recommend
> is to pick a something, document it and follow your document.
This is indeed the most important thing. The system I just laid out (that I
use) in another e-mail is only useful to me insofar as I am consistent in
stic
My two cents:
I (sinfully) use the plurals in the table names. Can be confusing, yes, but
if you are consistent one way or the other, you should be able to remember
what you are doing.
My rules:
1) Each table name has a related table abbreviation (e.g., CLIENTS has CLI,
PHONENUMBERS has PHONE).
ch as a table containing People, but
> more
> > than one set (sets - plural) would be like People and Organization
> > (two sets).
> >
> > So a table name should be singular using the set reference :P
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [
The are so many options on which styles to follow, the approach I recommend
is to pick a something, document it and follow your document.
For my clients that I do database design work for, as part of the
deliverable, I give them a copy of the style guide we used to develop the
database.
If you
Dick Applebaum wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2004, at 8:47 AM, Keith Gaughan wrote:
>
>
>>> If everyone wants to get all technical with relational database
>>> theory, a table name should be singular because it is an ENTITY.
>>
>> The way I was taught it, a table represents a *set* of entities.
>
> Actu
On Oct 19, 2004, at 8:47 AM, Keith Gaughan wrote:
>
>> If everyone wants to get all technical with relational database
>> theory,
>> a table name should be singular because it is an ENTITY.
>
> The way I was taught it, a table represents a *set* of entities.
>
>
Actually, a table is an entity th
Chris Peters wrote:
> If everyone wants to get all technical with relational database theory,
> a table name should be singular because it is an ENTITY.
The way I was taught it, a table represents a *set* of entities.
K.
--
Keith Gaughan, Developer
Digital Crew Ltd., Pembroke House, Pembroke S
Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX) wrote:
> Well it will probably be negligible, but are you planning to name your
> tables A,B,C,D,E etc...?
>
> You will be in the same boat of any naming convention unless you only want
> tables names A,B,C or, AA, BB, CC or even AAA, BBB,CCC etc... ;-)
I think his poi
singular using the set reference :P
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: 10/19/04 9:28 am
> To: CF-Talk
> Subj: RE: Field Naming
>
> As said there is no definitive but here's my two pennies worth.
>
> >> After all, we a
Date: 10/19/04 9:28 am
To: CF-Talk
Subj: RE: Field Naming
As said there is no definitive but here's my two pennies worth.
>> After all, we are talking about sets here, and it's natural to
pluralise them.
My old database teacher would have a fit with that... but each to their
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 th
Jochem,
Your right, but when you have multiple apps using the same DB or when
the user account does not have permissions to do "CREATE SCHEMA", this
comes in handy for me. Also, I do the "'My Sample Application' ==
msa_" thing anyway in my file naming so this helps in keeping things
straight in my
-Talk
Subject: RE: Field Naming
> From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
> Well it will probably be negligible, but are you planning to
> name your tables A,B,C,D,E etc...?
> You will be in the same boat of any naming convention unless
> you only want tables names A,B,C or, AA, BB,
Yeah...I suppose it is down to each RDBMS but I know for SQL Server the
performance difference would not even significant or even on the scale.
-Original Message-
From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19 October 2004 15:36
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Field Naming
> What is wrong with application_user? I prefer to keep
> everything in lowercase so I can easily distinguish SQL
> keywords from identifiers.
Good point. If I weren't so tied to the color coding of the database
IDEs I use, then this would be my choice as well; but since the color
coding identif
> From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
> Well it will probably be negligible, but are you planning to
> name your tables A,B,C,D,E etc...?
> You will be in the same boat of any naming convention unless
> you only want tables names A,B,C or, AA, BB, CC or even AAA,
> BBB,CCC etc... ;-)
A better ex
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.
With the one database that I know enough about the internals to
say something
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19 October 2004 15:34
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Field Naming
> From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
> "but when you have DBs with hundreds of tables, this can add up."
> Erm...that statement isn't true.
How so? You mean to tell me that this:
tblA
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 9:01 AM
Subject: RE: Field Naming
> Again, its all personal choice. I usually steer well clear of underscores
> as a rule as it can be hard to distinguish between multiple underscores..
>
Ian Sheridan wrote:
>
> Name of application == "My Sample Application" == msa_
>
> Table for users == msa_usr_users
Application prefix? Isn't that what schema's are for?
CREATE SCHEMA msa ...
CREATE TABLE msa.users ...
Jochem
Tangorre, Michael wrote:
>From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
>>
>> Again, its all personal choice. I usually steer well clear
>> of underscores as a rule as it can be hard to distinguish
>> between multiple underscores..
>
> Out of the following, I find option 1 to be the easiest to read.
>
> A
> From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
> "but when you have DBs with hundreds of tables, this can add up."
> Erm...that statement isn't true.
How so? You mean to tell me that this:
tblA
tblB
tblC
tblD
tblE
Is faster than:
A
B
C
D
E
?
~~
es in-house.
N
-Original Message-
From: Tangorre, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19 October 2004 15:18
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Field Naming
> From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
>
> Again, its all personal choice. I usually steer well clear
> of underscores as
> From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
>
> Again, its all personal choice. I usually steer well clear
> of underscores as a rule as it can be hard to distinguish
> between multiple underscores..
Out of the following, I find option 1 to be the easiest to read.
APPLICATION_USER
APPLICATION-USER
App
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As said there is no definitive but here's my two pennies worth.
>
>>>After all, we are talking about sets here, and it's natural to
>>>pluralise them.
>
> My old database teacher would have a fit with that... but each to their
> own :)
Maybe so, but it makes a lot o
!):
vcName
cName
iProductID
dDateInserted
etc
the same for Store Procedures:
[app]sp_[Get..Update..Delete][Feature]
N
-Original Message-
From: Ian Sheridan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19 October 2004 14:57
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Field Naming
Andrew,
I usually go with this
Andrew,
I usually go with this method:
Name of application == "My Sample Application" == msa_
Table for users == msa_usr_users
User table fields ==
usr_id
usr_firstname
usr_lastname
And a Foreign Key would be like so ==
usr_uro_id (this would be a foreign key to the userr
There's whole religions dealing with table-naming conventions. For instance,
I'm in the "table names are singular" sect. My other conventions are:
prepend table names with project name/abbreviation. (We do this because
we'll have multiple projects in the same DB, which in itself is not a best
pr
As said there is no definitive but here's my two pennies worth.
>> After all, we are talking about sets here, and it's natural to
pluralise them.
My old database teacher would have a fit with that... but each to their
own :)
We use two words to describe (and name) each table
An example here w
> From: Andrew Dixon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'm just starting a major project for a government client and
> the first job is to design the database. Is there any
> recongnised convention on the naming of database fields. In
> the past I have always named them [table_name_field_name] for
>
Hi Andrew
Based purely on ituition / gut feel / experience, I never name a table as
its plural, always singular form, so Project table, not Projects table.
Sorry I know of no published field naming standard, but do something similar
to what you have suggested.
Aaron
- Original Message -
32 matches
Mail list logo
