Do you prefer verbose naming when it comes to database columns? [closed]

Answer 1

I prefer the second option because the first option, to me, seems like unnecessary repetition. Of course, I'm primarily a Ruby on Rails programmer, so I love the DRY principle. :) I found it annoying coming to C# programming because everything does use the first, explicit-but-repetitious version.

Answer 2

The table name already gives the context. No need to prefix columns name with it. When joining tables use table.column syntax.

Answer 3

I stick with as short as names as possible. People prefixing the name of the table on every column makes me violent. PERSON.first_name, not PERSON.person_first_name. We know its a person, its in the person table... what else would it be?

The only time I go against this rule is for id colums, for example: PERSON.personID.

The rule is, with apologies to Einstein; to be as verbose as necessary, but no more verbose.

Answer 4

Option 2 is the best (for me of course :) ),
I'm a PHP programmer not a .NET one.

Answer 5

I prefer to stick with the short version of "ID". It's an easy to understand and follow convention that a record identifier for a table would be called "ID" and it will refer to its "own" table and not to something else (though there is sometimes no need for an "own" identifier in some tables like mappings).

Another outcome that it gives is that whenever you write a query you don't need to think and remember the exact column name. You know that as soon as it makes sense for a table to have a record identifier it could be referenced by "ID".

It simplifies things.

Answer 6

I think if the column name is not unique in database, you should prefix it with the tablename. Like, ProductId, ProductName. For columns not conflicting with columns in other table, don't prefix it.