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.

虽然很晚了，但我仍然想对列前缀发表我的意见

对于使用table_column(或tableColumn)列命名标准，似乎有两个主要的论据，都是基于列名本身在整个数据库中是唯一的这一事实:

1)你不需要一直在你的查询中指定表名和/或列别名

2)你可以很容易地在整个代码中搜索列名

我认为这两种观点都有缺陷。不使用前缀解决这两个问题很简单。以下是我的建议:

在SQL中始终使用表名。例如，总是用table。列而不是列。

它显然解决了2)你现在只需要搜索表。而不是table_column。

But I can hear you scream, how does it solve 1)? It was exactly about avoiding this. Yes, it was, but the solution was horribly flawed. Why? Well, the prefix solution boils down to: To avoid having to specify table.column when there's ambiguity, you name all your columns table_column! But this means you will from now on ALWAYS have to write the column name every time you specify a column. But if you have to do that anyways, what's the benefit over always explicitly writing table.column? Exactly, there is no benefit, it's the exact same number of characters to type.

编辑:是的，我知道用前缀命名列可以强制使用正确的用法，而我的方法依赖于程序员

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

我知道这有点晚了，这个问题已经得到了很好的回答，但我想就#3关于列名前缀的问题提出我的看法。

所有列都应该使用一个对定义它们的表唯一的前缀命名。

例如，给定表“customer”和“address”，让我们分别使用前缀“cust”和“addr”。"customer"中会有"cust_id"， "cust_name"等。“address”将包含“addr_id”，“addr_cust_id”(FK返回给客户)，“addr_street”等。

当我第一次看到这个标准时，我坚决反对它;我讨厌这个主意。我无法忍受所有额外的输入和冗余。现在我已经有了足够的经验，我再也不会回去了。

这样做的结果是数据库模式中的所有列都是唯一的。这有一个主要的好处，它压倒了所有反对它的论点(当然，在我看来):

您可以搜索整个代码库，并可靠地找到涉及特定列的每一行代码。

The benefit from #1 is incredibly huge. I can deprecate a column and know exactly what files need to be updated before the column can safely be removed from the schema. I can change the meaning of a column and know exactly what code needs to be refactored. Or I can simply tell if data from a column is even being used in a particular portion of the system. I can't count the number of times this has turned a potentially huge project into a simple one, nor the amount of hours we've saved in development work.

另一个相对较小的好处是，当你进行自连接时，你只需要使用表别名:

SELECT cust_id, cust_name, addr_street, addr_city, addr_state
    FROM customer
        INNER JOIN address ON addr_cust_id = cust_id
    WHERE cust_name LIKE 'J%';

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。

我在一个有三个dba的数据库支持团队工作，我们考虑的选项是:

任何命名标准都比没有标准好。 没有“唯一正确”的标准，我们都有自己的偏好 如果有现成的标准，就使用它。不要创建新的标准，也不要混淆现有标准。

我们对表使用单数名称。表往往以系统名称(或其首字母缩写)作为前缀。如果系统复杂，这是有用的，因为您可以更改前缀来将表逻辑地分组在一起。Reg_customer, reg_booking和regadmin_limits)。

对于字段，我们希望字段名包括表的前缀/acryonm(即cust_address1)，我们也更喜欢使用一组标准的后缀(_id表示PK， _cd表示“code”，_nm表示“name”，_nb表示“number”，_dt表示“Date”)。

“外键”字段的名称应与“主键”字段保持一致。

即。

SELECT cust_nm, cust_add1, booking_dt
FROM reg_customer
INNER JOIN reg_booking
ON reg_customer.cust_id = reg_booking.cust_id

在开发新项目时，我建议你写出所有首选的实体名称、前缀和首字母缩写，并将此文档交给开发人员。然后，当他们决定创建一个新表时，他们可以引用文档，而不是“猜测”表和字段应该被称为什么。