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)

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)

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.

我认为这些问题的最佳答案将由您和您的团队给出。有一个命名约定比命名约定的具体方式重要得多。

因为这个问题没有正确答案，你应该花点时间(但不要太多)选择你自己的习惯——这是重要的部分——坚持它。

当然，寻求一些关于标准的信息是很好的，这就是你要问的，但不要因为你可能得到的不同答案的数量而焦虑或担心:选择一个对你来说更好的答案。

以防万一，以下是我的答案:

是的。表是一组记录，老师或演员，所以…复数。 是的。 我不用它们。 我经常使用的数据库——Firebird——所有内容都是大写的，所以没关系。不管怎样，当我在编程时，我以一种更容易阅读的方式写名字，比如releaseYear。

在我看来:

表名应该是复数形式。 列名应该是单数。 不。 对于表名和列名，可以选择CamelCase(我的首选)或underscore_separated。

然而，就像上面提到的，任何约定都比没有约定好。无论您选择如何做，都要记录它，以便将来的修改遵循相同的约定。

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%';