1

The project I am currently working request me to name the tables to something like: df_cmn_aum_xx_typ_cur instead of something like courses.

Are there some known standards or best practices to recommend my bosses to abandon this convention?

3
  • Naming things is notoriously hard. It's too subjective to get a once-and-for-all answer, but there are a lot of good points here: stackoverflow.com/questions/7662/…
    – Doug Deden
    Oct 1, 2019 at 16:31
  • 3
    I think F9018 is a much better name than either of your options.
    – mustaccio
    Oct 1, 2019 at 17:41
  • hehe.... I think the same, honestly
    – Raul Luna
    Oct 2, 2019 at 18:51

3 Answers 3

2

Always name your table and column with meaningful words. Abbreviations are subjective. It may save few bites but very difficult to comprehend.

0

Started as a comment and got to long.

At first glance and with no idea why the current names are in use. I don't see anything wrong with df_cmn_aum_xx_typ_cur I would assume that at some point, multiple similar tables are queried and/or migrated together.

Before you try and change the current convention, maybe find out why it was created?

1
  • 1
    Well... their reasons are that the names are consistent among other applications. For instance "df" means "definition". "cmn" means "common" and so on. So, the point is I found very difficult to memorize that and I don't understand why, if the entity is used to store course information, don't just name it "courses"
    – Raul Luna
    Oct 1, 2019 at 16:18
0

In addition to this.

Avoid spaces and punctuation in the object name. For example dbo.[table name] or dbo.[table.name]

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.