每当我设计数据库时,我总是想知道是否有一种最好的方法来命名数据库中的项目。我经常问自己以下问题:
表名应该是复数吗? 列名应该是单数吗? 我应该为表或列添加前缀吗? 我应该在命名项目时使用大小写吗?
是否有推荐的指导原则来命名数据库中的项?
每当我设计数据库时,我总是想知道是否有一种最好的方法来命名数据库中的项目。我经常问自己以下问题:
表名应该是复数吗? 列名应该是单数吗? 我应该为表或列添加前缀吗? 我应该在命名项目时使用大小写吗?
是否有推荐的指导原则来命名数据库中的项?
当前回答
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。
其他回答
表名:它应该是单数,因为它是一个表示真实世界对象的单数实体,而不是表示对象的单数实体。
列名:它应该是单数,只有这样它才表示它将持有一个原子值,并将确认归一化理论。然而,如果有n个相同类型的属性,那么它们应该以1,2,…作为后缀。n,等等。
表/列前缀:这是一个巨大的主题,将在后面讨论。
外壳:应该是驼色的
我的朋友Patrick Karcher,我请求你不要写任何可能冒犯别人的东西,就像你写的那样,“此外,外键必须在不同的表中一致命名。如果有人不这样做,殴打他应该是合法的。”我从来没有犯过这样的错误,我的朋友帕特里克,但我写一般。如果他们一起打算为此揍你呢?:)
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。
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.
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