+1 That's exactly what I do too.
--- Larry Meadors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I generally name my key fields uniquely, but leave the others what > they are, for example: > > create table Fruit ( > fruitId int, > name varchar(30) > ) > > Then if I join to another table with a "name" field, I alias them to > include the table name (so, in this case i would use "fruitName"). > > That said..it really does not matter for the N+1 selects solution, > becuase it relies on the property names, not the field names. :-) > > Larry > > > On 11/1/05, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Maybe someone has encountered this problem and would > > like to lend a hand. > > > > Many of the tables that I have have column names that > > are not unique across tables. At the moment, I have > > taken the solution to rename each column in my query > > and each resultMap knows what to look for: > > > > <resultMap id="fruitMap" class="Fruit"> > > <result property="id" column="f_id"/> > > <result property="name" column="f_name"/> > > </resultMap> > > > > So I have the convention that any columns from the > > Fruit table will be returned as f_, anything from the > > Vegetables column be v_, etc. This then allows me to > > query multiple tables when solving the N+1 problem and > > not get things confused. > > > > But is there a better way? > > >
