我总是听到这样的争论，即表格是否多元化完全是个人品味的问题，没有最佳实践。我不相信这是真的，尤其是作为一个程序员而不是DBA。据我所知，除了“这对我来说很有意义，因为它是对象的集合”之外，没有其他合理的理由将表名改为复数形式，而使用单数表名在代码中有合理的好处。例如:

It avoids bugs and mistakes caused by plural ambiguities. Programmers aren't exactly known for their spelling expertise, and pluralizing some words are confusing. For example, does the plural word end in 'es' or just 's'? Is it persons or people? When you work on a project with large teams, this can become an issue. For example, an instance where a team member uses the incorrect method to pluralize a table he creates. By the time I interact with this table, it is used all over in code I don't have access to or would take too long to fix. The result is I have to remember to spell the table wrong every time I use it. Something very similar to this happened to me. The easier you can make it for every member of the team to consistently and easily use the exact, correct table names without errors or having to look up table names all the time, the better. The singular version is much easier to handle in a team environment. If you use the singular version of a table name AND prefix the primary key with the table name, you now have the advantage of easily determining a table name from a primary key or vice versa via code alone. You can be given a variable with a table name in it, concatenate "Id" to the end, and you now have the primary key of the table via code, without having to do an additional query. Or you can cut off "Id" from the end of a primary key to determine a table name via code. If you use "id" without a table name for the primary key, then you cannot via code determine the table name from the primary key. In addition, most people who pluralize table names and prefix PK columns with the table name use the singular version of the table name in the PK (for example statuses and status_id), making it impossible to do this at all. If you make table names singular, you can have them match the class names they represent. Once again, this can simplify code and allow you to do really neat things, like instantiating a class by having nothing but the table name. It also just makes your code more consistent, which leads to... If you make the table name singular, it makes your naming scheme consistent, organized, and easy to maintain in every location. You know that in every instance in your code, whether it's in a column name, as a class name, or as the table name, it's the same exact name. This allows you to do global searches to see everywhere that data is used. When you pluralize a table name, there will be cases where you will use the singular version of that table name (the class it turns into, in the primary key). It just makes sense to not have some instances where your data is referred to as plural and some instances singular.

总而言之，如果你将表名改为复数，那么你就失去了让你的代码更聪明、更容易处理的所有优势。甚至在某些情况下，您必须使用查找表/数组来将表名转换为本可以避免的对象或本地代码名。虽然一开始可能感觉有点奇怪，但单数表名比复数表名具有显著优势，我相信这是最佳实践。

这里的回答有点晚，但简而言之:

复数表名:我的偏好是复数 单个列名:是的 前缀表或列:

表:*通常*没有前缀是最好的。 列:没有。

在命名项时使用任何大小写:表和列都使用PascalCase。

细化:

(1)你必须做什么。很少有事情是你每次都必须以某种方式去做的，但还是有一些。

Name your primary keys using "[singularOfTableName]ID" format. That is, whether your table name is Customer or Customers, the primary key should be CustomerID. Further, foreign keys must be named consistently in different tables. It should be legal to beat up someone who does not do this. I would submit that while defined foreign key constraints are often important, consistent foreign key naming is always important You database must have internal conventions. Even though in later sections you'll see me being very flexible, within a database naming must be very consistent . Whether your table for customers is called Customers or Customer is less important than that you do it the same way throughout the same database. And you can flip a coin to determine how to use underscores, but then you must keep using them the same way. If you don't do this, you are a bad person who should have low self-esteem.

你可能应该做的事。

Fields representing the same kind of data on different tables should be named the same. Don't have Zip on one table and ZipCode on another. To separate words in your table or column names, use PascalCasing. Using camelCasing would not be intrinsically problematic, but that's not the convention and it would look funny. I'll address underscores in a moment. (You may not use ALLCAPS as in the olden days. OBNOXIOUSTABLE.ANNOYING_COLUMN was okay in DB2 20 years ago, but not now.) Don't artifically shorten or abbreviate words. It is better for a name to be long and clear than short and confusing. Ultra-short names is a holdover from darker, more savage times. Cus_AddRef. What on earth is that? Custodial Addressee Reference? Customer Additional Refund? Custom Address Referral?

(3)你应该考虑什么。

I really think you should have plural names for tables; some think singular. Read the arguments elsewhere. Column names should be singular however. Even if you use plural table names, tables that represent combinations of other tables might be in the singular. For example, if you have a Promotions and an Items table, a table representing an item being a part of a promotion could be Promotions_Items, but it could also legitimately be Promotion_Items I think (reflecting the one-to-many relationship). Use underscores consistently and for a particular purpose. Just general tables names should be clear enough with PascalCasing; you don't need underscores to separate words. Save underscores either (a) to indicate an associative table or (b) for prefixing, which I'll address in the next bullet. Prefixing is neither good or bad. It usually is not best. In your first db or two, I would not suggest using prefixes for general thematic grouping of tables. Tables end up not fitting your categories easily, and it can actually make it harder to find tables. With experience, you can plan and apply a prefixing scheme that does more good than harm. I worked in a db once where data tables began with tbl, config tables with ctbl, views with vew, proc's sp, and udf's fn, and a few others; it was meticulously, consistently applied so it worked out okay. The only time you NEED prefixes is when you have really separate solutions that for some reason reside in the same db; prefixing them can be very helpful in grouping the tables. Prefixing is also okay for special situations, like for temporary tables that you want to stand out. Very seldom (if ever) would you want to prefix columns.

表名一定要保持单数，person而不是people 我也一样 不。我见过一些糟糕的前缀，以至于声明我们处理的是一个表(tbl_)或一个用户存储过程(usp_)。后面跟着数据库名…不要这样做! 是的。我倾向于PascalCase我所有的表名

好吧，既然我们有意见:

我认为表名应该是复数。表是实体的集合(表)。每一行表示一个实体，表表示集合。因此，我将Person实体表称为People(或Persons，随您喜欢)。

对于那些喜欢在查询中看到单一“实体名称”的人来说，这就是我使用表别名的原因:

SELECT person.Name
FROM People person

有点像LINQ的“from person in people select person. name”。

至于2、3和4，我同意@Lars的观点。

我建议你看看微软的SQL Server样本数据库: https://github.com/Microsoft/sql-server-samples/releases/tag/adventureworks

AdventureWorks示例使用了非常清晰和一致的命名约定，它使用模式名组织数据库对象。

表的单数名称 列的单数名称 表前缀的架构名称(例如:SchemeName.TableName) 帕斯卡壳(又称上驼峰壳)

请参阅ISO 11179-5:命名和识别原则 你可以在这里获得:http://metadata-standards.org/11179/#11179-5

我之前写过一篇博文:ISO-11179命名约定