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

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

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。

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.

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

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.