March 8, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Ok we have lots of standards where i work and I have seen lots of other developers and DBA standards but what I want is the naming standard for the actuall Database ..not the tables or other objects.
Why ?
Ingress DBA's whish to take over SQL work in our organisation and want everyone to use Ingress standards ie a seven letter code.
eg
LAPDDDB
LA = Section Owner of Database
PD = The two letter designation of the application name eg DP Data Products
D = Development Database
DB = Database
Ingres on a Unix system allows for only 8 characters for a database name
Anything in best practices which discourages using a code instead of meaning full names for databases.
March 9, 2006 at 8:22 am
You just had to take unexpected timeoff and will be off work for over a month. The company brought me in to fill-in for while you are gone.
How the heck am I going to know the purpose of that database?
Being limited to 8 characters, which is more understandable:
LAPDDB or DataProd?
Why append DB? We know it's a database.
-SQLBill
March 10, 2006 at 7:36 am
I believe in plain english, if i die, or disappear, i want it pretty obvious, what the database is for, especially when you have a lot of them..
Next i am concerned, with, do i want to group certain databases together as part of applications used? If so, I have a prefix to group them with...
If no grouping then i go by purpose with no spaces, maybe an underline...
Let's say i create database for holding workmens' compensation information...
If it's in a group...
I would name it HRWorkComp
If it's all by itself
WorkComp
keep it simple and short if it can be easily read, if not, then spell it longer..
I prefer shorter names, so i don't have to always type garguantian names for db, tables, views, fields..
Make any sense?
March 10, 2006 at 9:03 am
I usually spend an inordinate amount of time mulling over names...I totally agree with keeping it simple, short and descriptive - however, it's not always easy to combine all three with ease so I almost always sacrifice simple and short to descriptive...
**ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI !!!**
March 10, 2006 at 11:43 am
'standards' have thier place. They need to be followed and have enforcement in order to work. They also have to have room for exceptions and more importantly the ability to change (evolve). In order to have evolution they need to be revisited. It sounds as if it is time for some 'natural' evolution in your database naming 'standards.
RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."
March 10, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Agree with all.
Moreover, coded names give a lot of room for the errors when you need to assure you are dealing with the correct database.
What I would not recommend at all is a dash in a database name as a part of the naming convention though it could look attractive. Every line of code containg the database name will have a database name enclosed in []
Regards,Yelena Varsha
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply