Re: object naming conventions

I like the suffix idea too for constraints and indexes. One of our old legacy applications names tables really weird. Like CC_TABLE_TBL. Not surprising, this is our credit card table. But why did they put TABLE_TBL on the end? That's pretty redundant. A nice schema with TABLE_TBL on about 40 tables.

Personally, I don't like to add any descriptor to tables or views. Why does the end user or application care if it is a table or a view, or a snynonym? It shouldn't. That's why we have this "transparency" thing.

Cheers,
Brian

Noons wrote:
>
> "andrewst" <member14183_at_dbforums.com> wrote in message
> news:3065841.1057140903_at_dbforums.com...
>
> >
> > Originally posted by Martin Doering
> > > But it is interesting, that many people use such conventions. For
> > > example, we have some tables and some sequences related to them. So
> > > here I think it makes sense to give them both the same names, but let
> > > the sequence start (or end) with an addition.
> > >
> > Naming table-related objects in a way that clearly links them to the
> > table is helpful; and the easiest way to do that is with prefixes or
> > suffixes like "SEQ_", "_PK" etc.
>
> Personally, I favour suffixes. It's objects associated
> with table, they shouldn't prefix the table name.
> So I get *_PK, *_SEQ, *_VW, *_UKn, *_OT. But that's
> about it and only in small doses!
>
> > But giving the tables themselves a
> > prefix like "T_" or the disgusting VB-like names such as "tblEmployee"
> > is totally unhelpful and extremely irritating. IMHO.
>
> And my preferred pet peeve: prefixing the column names
> with table abbreviation. Duh!...
>
> --
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam

-- 
===================================================================

Brian Peasland
oracle_dba_at_remove_spam.peasland.com

Remove the "remove_spam." from the email address to email me.


"I can give it to you cheap, quick, and good. Now pick two out of
 the three"