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

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。

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。