Database Naming Conventions, Part Deux
A couple of weeks ago I posted about database naming conventions, asking if anyone knew of a good website or resource that detailed naming conventions for database objects. Since I didn't receive much feedback, I decided to strike out on my own in search of something. Even with help from Google, I found less than half a dozen “good” resources that discussed naming database objects. In each case, the convention seemed skewed towards SQL Server, Oracle, or some other database system. So, I decided to aggregate what I found and add some of my own opinions, to produce my own naming convention. I've come to the conclusion that there can't be a single naming convention that can be taken as pure gospel. There's just too many ways to come up with good names. Having said that, I think what I've come up with makes good logical sense and will raise very few problems, if any.
It can be found here.
Please, if you have some time, skim over it and let me know what you think. This is the type of content I would like to publish for DevCampus, so the content is going to be influenced by the feedback from the community. If you spot any holes in the naming convention, I'd love to hear about it. My next project for database naming conventions is going to be creating some subsets of guidelines that are DBMS specific for SQL Server, Oracle, and Access. I intentionally left out naming conventions for objects like “Queries” in Access as I wanted to keep this first draft DBMS neutral.
UPDATE: Upon receiving helpful feedback and comments (thanks people) and exchanging emails with a few people, I've changed some of the rules and updated the version to 1.1