这里有一个链接，提供了一些选择。我正在寻找一个简单的规范，我可以遵循，而不是依赖于一个部分定义的规范。

http://justinsomnia.org/writings/naming_conventions.html

--Example SQL

CREATE TABLE D001_Students
(
    StudentID INTEGER CONSTRAINT nnD001_STID NOT NULL,
    ChristianName NVARCHAR(255) CONSTRAINT nnD001_CHNA NOT NULL,
    Surname NVARCHAR(255) CONSTRAINT nnD001_SURN NOT NULL,
    CONSTRAINT pkD001 PRIMARY KEY(StudentID)
);

CREATE INDEX idxD001_STID on D001_Students;

CREATE TABLE D002_Classes
(
    ClassID INTEGER CONSTRAINT nnD002_CLID NOT NULL,
    StudentID INTEGER CONSTRAINT nnD002_STID NOT NULL,
    ClassName NVARCHAR(255) CONSTRAINT nnD002_CLNA NOT NULL,
    CONSTRAINT pkD001 PRIMARY KEY(ClassID, StudentID),
    CONSTRAINT fkD001_STID FOREIGN KEY(StudentID) 
        REFERENCES D001_Students(StudentID)
);

CREATE INDEX idxD002_CLID on D002_Classes;

CREATE VIEW V001_StudentClasses
(
    SELECT
        D001.ChristianName,
        D001.Surname,
        D002.ClassName
    FROM
        D001_Students D001
            INNER JOIN
        D002_Classes D002
            ON
        D001.StudentID = D002.StudentID
);

这些是我学到的惯例，但是您应该适应您的开发软管使用的任何东西。

复数。它是实体的集合。 是的。属性是一个实体的单一属性的表示。 是的，前缀表名允许轻松跟踪所有约束索引和表别名的命名。 表和列名用大小写，索引和约束用前缀+ ALL大写。

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