我们的偏好:

Should table names be plural? Never. The arguments for it being a collection make sense, but you never know what the table is going to contain (0,1 or many items). Plural rules make the naming unnecessarily complicated. 1 House, 2 houses, mouse vs mice, person vs people, and we haven't even looked at any other languages. Update person set property = 'value' acts on each person in the table. Select * from person where person.name = 'Greg' returns a collection/rowset of person rows. Should column names be singular? Usually, yes, except where you are breaking normalisation rules. Should I prefix tables or columns? Mostly a platform preference. We prefer to prefix columns with the table name. We don't prefix tables, but we do prefix views (v_) and stored_procedures (sp_ or f_ (function)). That helps people who want to try to upday v_person.age which is actually a calculated field in a view (which can't be UPDATEd anyway). It is also a great way to avoid keyword collision (delivery.from breaks, but delivery_from does not). It does make the code more verbose, but often aids in readability. bob = new person() bob.person_name = 'Bob' bob.person_dob = '1958-12-21' ... is very readable and explicit. This can get out of hand though: customer.customer_customer_type_id indicates a relationship between customer and the customer_type table, indicates the primary key on the customer_type table (customer_type_id) and if you ever see 'customer_customer_type_id' whilst debugging a query, you know instantly where it is from (customer table). or where you have a M-M relationship between customer_type and customer_category (only certain types are available to certain categories) customer_category_customer_type_id ... is a little (!) on the long side. Should I use any case in naming items? Yes - lower case :), with underscores. These are very readable and cross platform. Together with 3 above it also makes sense. Most of these are preferences though. - As long as you are consistent, it should be predictable for anyone that has to read it.

我的观点是:

1)不，表名应该是单数。

虽然对于简单的选择(select * from Orders)似乎有意义，但对于OO等效(Orders x = new Orders)则没有意义。

数据库中的表实际上是该实体的集合，当你使用set-logic时，它更有意义:

select Orders.*
from Orders inner join Products
    on Orders.Key = Products.Key

最后一行，连接的实际逻辑，看起来与复数表名混淆。

我不确定是否总是使用别名(如Matt建议的那样)可以消除这种情况。

2)它们应该是单数，因为它们只拥有一种属性

3)如果列名有歧义(如上所述，它们都有一个名为[Key]的列)，表名(或其别名)永远不能很好地区分它们。您希望查询能够快速键入，并且简单-前缀会增加不必要的复杂性。

4)无论你想要什么，我都推荐CapitalCase

我不认为有任何一套绝对的指导方针。

只要你在应用程序或数据库中选择的是一致的，我不认为这真的很重要。

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。

不。表应该以它所代表的实体命名。 Person，而不是persons是指记录所代表的人。 同样的事情。列FirstName真的不应该被称为FirstNames。这完全取决于你想用列表示什么。 不。 是的。为清晰起见。如果你需要像“FirstName”这样的列，大小写会让它更容易阅读。

好的。这是我的0.02美元

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)

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