表名为单数。假设您正在建模某人与其地址之间的关系。 例如，如果您正在读取一个数据模型，您会选择 每个人可以住在0、1或多个地址。”或 每个人可以住在0、1或多个地址。 我认为用复数的称呼比把人写成person更容易。加上集合名词通常与单数名词不同。

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

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

命名约定允许开发团队在项目的核心设计可发现性和可维护性。

一个好的命名约定需要时间来发展，但一旦它到位，它就可以让团队使用一种共同的语言向前发展。好的命名约定会随着项目的发展而有机地发展。好的命名约定可以很容易地处理软件生命周期中最长和最重要的阶段(生产中的服务管理)中的变化。

以下是我的回答:

是的，当表名指的是一组交易、证券或交易对手时，表名应该是复数。 是的。 是的。SQL表前缀为tb_，视图前缀为vw_，存储过程前缀为usp_，触发器前缀为tg_，后面加数据库名。 列名应以小写字母用下划线分隔。

命名很难，但在每个组织中都有人可以命名事物，在每个软件团队中都应该有人负责命名标准，并确保像sec_id、sec_value和security_id这样的命名问题在融入项目之前尽早得到解决。

那么，一个好的命名规范和标准的基本原则是什么呢

使用你客户的语言 解域 是描述性的 是一致的 消除歧义，反思和重构 不要使用缩写，除非它们 每个人都清楚 不要使用SQL保留关键字作为 列名

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.

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.