Sql server database naming convension

Question

0.00/5 (No votes)

See more:

Hello, I am currently working in a project that uses sql server as backend.

I worked with different databases like Oracle, Mysql and Postgres as well.

I created database in Sql Server and created table and its columns with underscore and all lower case.

plan_master (table)
(
plan_master_id (pk)
plan_name
)

plan_ detail (table)
(
plan_detail_id (pk)
plan_master_id (fk)
effective_ date
)

Since this practice I have seen in Mysql, Postgres and Oracle as well.

Now our client come into the picture and said that this is wrong practice. The correct way of table and column naming convension is having pascal case without underscore.

For ex.

PlanMaster (table)
(
PlanMasterId (pk)
PlanName
)

PlanDetail (table)
(
PlanDetailId (pk)
PlanMasterId (fk)
EffectiveDate
)

Please advice which is correct practice and why.

If our practice is incorrect for sql server then I have to rename almost 80 tables and its columns and its huge impact on already developed c# code.

What I have tried:

I created a function in database that will return the pascal case name.

Posted 30-Jan-20 14:53pm

Udai Karan Mathur

Updated 30-Jan-20 17:01pm

v2

Add a Solution

2 solutions

Solution 2

I agree with MadMyche, this is mainly a preference so unless the contract specifies which standard to use or let's the customer specify it, then both are correct. Personally I use Pascal casing without underscores at all, but as said, that's my preference.

After all the main things are distinctness and readability. These are partially achieved with naming but a more important role is played by the documentation. If the documentation is done well for both server and client side, the details of the naming used, such as Pascal case or underscores, become almost meaningless. Of course the naming has to be descriptive but in both of your examples, I believe this is the case.

One thing to still take into account is the case sensitivity. If the database is case insensitive, you can still query using upper or lower case characters in the object names.

Posted 30-Jan-20 17:01pm

Wendelius

Comments

MadMyche 31-Jan-20 7:21am

Thank you for your agreement

Patrice T 4-Feb-20 20:00pm

Agreed +5

Add a Solution

Add your solution here

Treat my content as plain text, not as HTML

Preview 0

…

Existing Members

Sign in to your account

...or Join us

Download, Vote, Comment, Publish.

Your Email
Password
Forgot your password?

Your Email
This email is in use. Do you need your password?
Optional Password

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Please subscribe me to the CodeProject newsletters

When answering a question please:

Read the question carefully.
Understand that English isn't everyone's first language so be lenient of bad spelling and grammar.
If a question is poorly phrased then either ask for clarification, ignore it, or edit the question and fix the problem. Insults are not welcome.
Don't tell someone to read the manual. Chances are they have and don't get it. Provide an answer or move on to the next question.

Let's work to help developers, not make them feel stupid.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

MadMyche · Accepted Answer · 2020-01-30T16:00:00

Neither is incorrect; it is all a matter of preference and opinion. I personally prefer their naming convention, and save the underscored names for for bridge/matrix tables and for stored procedures.

As for the client; it comes down to what was specified in the contract, if they had to approve the naming convention then it is on you to meet that specification. If it is not mentioned, then you need to let them know that and that there will be a delay for the rework that is needed