Systems Hungarian (like the above "usp" prefix) makes me shudder.
We share many stored procedures across different, similarly-structured databases, so for database-specific ones, we use a prefix of the database name itself; shared procedures have no prefix. I suppose using different schemas might be an alternative to get rid of such somewhat ugly prefixes altogether.
The actual name after the prefix is hardly different from function naming: typically a verb like "Add", "Set", "Generate", "Calculate", "Delete", etc., followed by several more specific nouns such as "User", "DailyRevenues", and so on.
Responding to Ant's comment:
- The difference between a table and a view is relevant to those who design the database schema, not those who access or modify its contents. In the rare case of needing schema specifics, it's easy enough to find. For the casual SELECT query, it is irrelevant. In fact, I regard being able to treat tables and views the same as a big advantage.
- Unlike with functions and stored procedures, the name of a table or view is unlikely to start with a verb, or be anything but one or more nouns.
- A function requires the schema prefix to be called. In fact, the call syntax (that we use, anyway) is very different between a function and a stored procedure. But even if it weren't, the same as 1. would apply: if I can treat functions and stored procedures the same, why shouldn't I?
