I have several calcuatled columns in a table (see below) that I have been work with. First can I assign a proper naming decision to the columns? How can I reference these columns in other tables?
For example how can I assign names to the columns listed below?
select date, ((abc * .05)+ efgh * .05), (((efgh * .475) + (abc * .475) + (123gross * .05)))
from table
where date = '2006-03-31
I did a search (google and on the forums) and found a few suggestions here and there, but I'd like something more complete to follow as far as naming conventions are concerned.
I wrote my first DB based on MySQL/Ruby/Active Record type naming convention...
- plural table names - all lower cased - underscores between words - "id" is auto incrementer for each table - something+"_at" is for datetime fields - something+"_on" is for date fields - referencing the primary id in another table is "tablename (singular)" + "_id".
This worked great in Ruby/MySQL, but in C#/SQL Server, its an ambiguity nightmare! All of my "id" fields conflict and alot of my tables have "added_at" datetime fields and they all conflict with each other. Essentially, any field that's named the same in one table as in another conflict on joins.
For example: users post comments to stories submitted by users...
table = articles field 1 = id field 2 = title field 3 = body field 4 = user_id
table = comments field 1 = id field 2 = title field 3 = body field 4 = user_id field 5 = article_id
Trying to join these two tables is an ambiguity nightmare but I'd like to not have to name every field uniquely or start adding table prefixes to them all...
I guess I just need some good suggestions or links to recommended table structure/naming conventions for SQL Server. Thanks in advance!
Hello, I have 2 tables: Articles and Users. These 2 tables are related by AuthorId (FK) in Articles and UserId (PK) in Users. My question is: should the use the same name for the 2 keys, i.e., UserId? Or it is normal to use AuthorId in Articles table and UserId in Users table. This makes more sense. Just a naming question. Thanks, Miguel
What does everyone think of this method?I have a ton of tables like User, Project etc. I use the SAME column names for each table. For an example, ID, Name, Status etc instead of UserID etc.Only for relationship naming will I use UserID.The reason I do this is from a OOP perspective.My dad often said that a table was a entitiy of an object and each record in the table was a instance of that object.
I am using SQL Server 7 w/ SP2. This may seem silly, but I'm trying to re-name a DTS local package -- so far without success. Surely there's a way to do this. Also, where is DTS info stored? That is, how does SQL Server store package names and other details? Thanks!
Most of the programming I do is in Access. I like to use naming conventions for all my tables, queries, etc. I am now moving several databases to SQL Server. Does anyone know of a good resource for naming convetions in SQL Server. Website, book?
Hi all, I wanted to ask for the naming conventions in SQL SERVER.as in case of pl/sql server we have ..name_of_package.name_of_procedure thats how we call the procedures i.e. owner of schema then name of package n then procedure name.....i want to ask you all how is it done in SQL SERVER..please try to reply as soon as possible, i will b waiting for the replies, regards
I would lean towards the vigorous because it would be very obvious what data is being referenced by the name. In the loosened version, I could very easily have many tables with a 'id' column or a 'is_active' column.
Inversely, I would lean towards the loosened version because the names are a lot shorter and, thus, easier / faster to type.
I figure, if I'm going to learn a new standard, now's a good time to do so.
I'm creating a new database for an application that I wish to sell in the future. When we sell it the client will have the option to host is or have us host it. I want to create a name for the database that doesn't describe what the product is. I also want to be able to create new databases if we host it and those names be of a similar convention or subject. I was thinking each would be a Greek god, galaxy names or something along those lines. Does anyone have any suggestions?
I'm coming from a MS Access background and so I'm very used to andcomfortable with the hungarian (Leszynski et al) naming conventions.However, I'm getting started into my first SQL Server Database andreally want to use the appropriate up to date standard namingconvention (ISO compliant).I think I have the general idea from raking though countlessconflicting sites and posts, but I'm a bit stuck on what to doregarding pk / fk namingFor example, in my MS Access world I would have two tables:tblOrders=======strOrderIDintCustomerIDdtOrderDate....tblCustomers==========intCustomerIDstrCustomerName....So what would the appropriate and most up-to-date and standard namingbe for SQL Server? My Guess:Orders=====Ord_Order_ID_PkOrd_Customer_ID_FkOrd_Order_Date....Customers========Cus_Customer_ID_PkCus_Customer_Name....How close (or far) am I from "Celko Proof" naming here?All help gratefully accepted!
When I schedule a DTS package as a Job and then look in the job step detail I am presented with the following line.
DTSRun /~Z0x3A2210EB05CE1F9968C82E............etc
This number means nothing to me and I presume it might be encoded or encrypted. If I wanted to be sure that this code actually relates to the correct DTS package how can I check.
Is there a specific table that will hold that code that will relate it to the DTS package??
I use data driven subscriptiosn to deliver the same report to 6 different customers. But each customer can see only his data. Reports are saved in a shared folder in xl version. Reports are saved like report_1,report_2 etc. Is there anyother way to name these reports without letting customer to change the name?
Is there any standard naming convention for SQL Server that microsoft suggest it? the same as naming guidlines in MSDN for designing libararies in .Net Framework.
Case: Exporting Report to PDF/Printing/TIFF Report: Contains 1 table with 19 Columns. 1 column is static, the other 18 are visible at the users descretion. Report when printed/exported to pdf spans 2 pages naturally, 16 on the first page, 3 on the second, and the column widths have been adjusted to provide a perfect page span .
User A elects to hide two of the columns, and show the rest. The report complies and the viewable version is perfect, the excel export is perfect.. the PDF export on the first page causes every fith column, starting with the last column that was hidden to be expanded to take up additional width. On the spanned page, it renders the first column on that page correctly, then there is a white space gap equal to the width of the hidden columns and then the rest of the cells show with the last column expanded to take up the same width that the original 2 columns were going to take up, plus its width.
We have tried several different settings to see if it helps this issue or makes it worse. So far cangrow/canshrink/keep together have made no impact. It is not possible to increase the page size due to limited page size selection availablility for the client. There are far too many combinations of what the user can elect to show or hide to put together different tables to show and hide on the same report to remove this effect.
Any help or suggestion on this issue would be appreciated
We have two tables. Users and Projects and there is a many-to-many relationship.Ex. A user can be assigned into multiple projects.For the relationship table, should the table name be UserProjects or ProjectUsers?Also should it be singular or plural? (ex. UsersProjects or ProjectsUsers)?
I am trying to name a new SQL table, but I keep receiving a message that a table with this name already exists in the database. However, when I try to run a SELECT statement using that table, the error msg tells me the object does not exist,and it is not in the combobox of existing tables that can be added to a diagram.
Does anyone know if it is possible to create dynamically named tables from within a stored procedure? The goal is to append a unique identifier on the end of an otherwise static table name to allow for multiple incarnations of the table to exist concurrently while not interfering with each other. For example, we would like to create and use a temp table that is suffixed with a login name to or a timestamp to make it unique.
I was wondering if there are generally accpeted naming standards for SQL Server ojbects (tables, store procedeures, triggers, views etc.) that might be available somewhere on the WEB. I was also wondering if most DBA`s prefix the object names like "sp_" or suffix the object like "Customer_T"? Any opinions?
SQL Server 2005 cluster. Active-Active. We want to create two instances. The two nodes are named:
mike-940-01 mike-940-02
I read somewhere that there can only be ONE default instance in a 2005 cluster. So I interpret that as meaning that I can only have one instance named after a virtual server (example: mike-940-03) and the other instance has to be a slashed instance (example: mike-940-03/instance1). But what if I create another virtual server (example: mike-940-04). Can I install a default instance in that server? Can someone help me clarify this?
Also, if I'm using all slashed instance names, then what does it choose as the base name before the slash? In other words, what decides which virtual server name is used? Is it the management node? Is it one of the nodes?
My objective is to keep consistency in the naming on the cluster. If I have to use slashed instances, then I want all sql server instances to have a slash.
Sorry about the confusing explanation, but that's probably a symptom of MY confusion.
Is there a good way to name tables that are used as lookup tables? If you have a table for movies and you think that a movie can be in more than one genre. Then you will have tables like the following.
a table for movies, table 1 id name ... 1 Scarface
a table for the movie genres, table 2 id name ... 1 action 2 mafia
a table that links the genres to the movies, table 3 id table 1 id table 2 id 1 1 1 2 1 2
Table 1 is no problem. I name it movie. Table 2 is the genres. I name it movie_genres. Table 3 specifies the genres for a specific movie so I name it movie_genres. Duh, already taken.
This is just an example and perhaps not the best. What should I call my to genre tables?
Hi,I am learning Ms Sql and I found that a lot of the tables I am finding( in different tutorials ) are using special names for their columnnames such like au_username, au_salery ...Is the any naming convention for column names, or just at all is thereany reason for naming the table columns in specific way.Thanks in advance.
Here is a simple question. I am having difficulty accessing booksonline at Microsoft so I thought I would ask here. What is thestandard naming syntax for Sqlserver 2005? Assuming I had thefollowing table, [proddb01].[details].[dbo].[daily_tranx], how would Irefer to it in the new version?Thanks a lot!
Hi.Could somebody kindly tell me what conventions and best practices areused when naming a database server (not the database itself) and/or acluster of database servers?thanks!
Is it possible to have spacing within a column name? Something like"column name." I can do it from EM but won't let me do it in queryanalyzer. Can someone tell me the command to do this in queryanalyzer? Thanks!