Serge Rielau wrote:
> Niall Litchfield wrote:
>> Timasmith wrote:
>>> On Feb 19, 5:57 am, "William Robertson" <williamr2..._at_googlemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 18, 5:25 pm, "Timasmith" <timasm..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In 10g is Oracle past the 30 character limit for table names and
>>>>> columns?
>>>> No, thank goodness. Let's hope it stays that way.
>>> Well I think one day they should increase, I liken it to DOS and 8
>>> character filenames. When you build large information systems with
>>> 100's, even thousands of tables it becomes rather annoying for users
>>> to have to guess the spelling. It also forces an ugly naming
>>> convention as the logical domain prefixes are forced from 'words' to
>>> '3 character prefixes that suck'.
>>>
>>
>> I wonder what limit you would increase it to?
>> I personally would object to a table called
> It seems like the industry is settling for 128.
> When you introduce UTF-8 to the mix and you are a Japanese customer 30
> bytes can get quite tight.
> The argument for long names being made to me (which I accept) is that
> especially for secondary objects such as INDEX and TRIGGER folsk liek to
> have descriptive names:
> Eg. for an index: <tbname>_IDX_<list of columns>
> or a trigger: <tbname>_TRG<BEF/AFT><ROW/STMT><operation><purpose>
> So it adds up...
>
> And yes it is a lot of tedious work and can't be sold to the marketing
> guys. :-(
>
> Cheers
> Serge
>
Finally something to thank the marketing guys for.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org
Received on Wed Feb 21 2007 - 22:49:04 CST
