Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase ««12345»»»

Worst Practices - Part 1 of a Very Long Series! Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Monday, October 8, 2001 6:13 PM
Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 12:00 AM
Points: 14, Visits: 1
quote:

When working on tables I always keep a copy of the data dictionary handy and that's how I determine the data type and domain of the field.


Is there some report or query that you use for this? What information does it contain?

What do people think of having the whole database diagram up on the walls? Which is what we are trying to do at the moment - but it's 6 A0 size sheets of paper - very big. So if there is a more beneficial way to give this information to the coders, I would be very interested in others' comments.

Jodie




Post #22154
Posted Monday, October 8, 2001 7:03 PM
SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: Moderators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 2:30 PM
Points: 6,784, Visits: 1,899
I've got one of those big diagrams of the SQL system tables - useful at times, especially during a discussion with someone else where you both easily see it. I think a lot of it depends on how often you need the document. Sometimes you want to look at the big picture, sometimes you're mired in detail! I've found the object browser in QA to be a quick and easy way to look at table level info.

Andy



Andy
SQLAndy - My Blog!
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Follow me on Twitter
Post #22155
Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2001 6:48 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 1:20 PM
Points: 1,060, Visits: 4
While I do agree that changing column names in a table is generally a bad thing to do, I have to say that with proper DB design upfront you should never have to change names, also if you do come across a change that has to be made you should still be in a developement environment and not far enough along to cause serious headaches. With the use of business objects you would reduce maintenance by haveing your DB integration code located all in one place.





- Vega
Post #22156
Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2001 7:01 AM
SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: Moderators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 2:30 PM
Points: 6,784, Visits: 1,899
I'll go along with the idea that if you've done a really good middle tier, you don't care as much about the column names. Or at least they are all in one place. I'm not sure that holds true - what about reporting, how many reports go through the business layer and not directly to the tables (Crytal Reports, etc)?

One other point - if you're truly working with a middle tier component, then why even worry about Hungarian, since only the middle tier developers will see them? Is it worth the effort then?

Im not complaining about your comments - I appreciate your contribution to the discussion!

Andy



Andy
SQLAndy - My Blog!
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Follow me on Twitter
Post #22157
Posted Thursday, October 11, 2001 3:06 PM
Mr or Mrs. 500

Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 11:15 AM
Points: 575, Visits: 35
Good article. I'm not a fan of Hungarian.

Sometime down the line write an article about stored procedure naming conventions (my favorite gripe). I have developers who "automatically" name their stored procedures sp_ ("because Microsoft does").



Patrick Birch


Quand on parle du loup, on en voit la queue
Post #22158
Posted Thursday, October 11, 2001 3:35 PM
SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: Moderators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 2:30 PM
Points: 6,784, Visits: 1,899
Definitely. I use usp_ in general, usp_dba_ for my stuff that I prefer no else use/touch. Other ideas on this?

Andy



Andy
SQLAndy - My Blog!
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Follow me on Twitter
Post #22159
Posted Sunday, October 14, 2001 11:48 PM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 11:31 AM
Points: 4, Visits: 1
I agree to the article for the case of column Names... but i am still happy with the Hungarian Notation(HN) being a BP for the case of programing. Being a VC%2b%2b programmer for quite sometime I am comfortable with the HN as it solves me lots of problems...especially for the scope case and also when the declaration is inside a class. As far as the column names go...I strongly go with the article...it's not a good idea for having Column Names in HN...this would add to the confusion. Column Names should be decide based on the business logic and not on Programmer Friendliness. If the latter happens... I would say that's a poor design.

PS: Please bear with my spelling/grammer mistakes...I am not that good in English.



~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~
It's the music that matters for a soulful experience... not the instrument.
~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~
Post #22160
Posted Monday, October 15, 2001 4:47 AM
SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: Moderators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 2:30 PM
Points: 6,784, Visits: 1,899
Dont worry about the spelling my friend - at least you HAVE a second language, more than I can claim

Andy



Andy
SQLAndy - My Blog!
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Follow me on Twitter
Post #22161
Posted Sunday, October 21, 2001 5:52 PM
SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: Moderators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 2:30 PM
Points: 6,784, Visits: 1,899
Ideally you have some kind of naming convention. Since ideals seem to rarely happen, I think "Something" would be ok as a column name. A good column name is descriptive without being overly long - I'd say between 3 and 12 characters. The best you can do is be consistent, don't mix styles, such as 'some_thing' in one table and 'somethingelse' in another. When I use my column names in code, I want the column name to be self describing so that someone doing maintenance work on the code can quickly and easily see what I am doing. I also prefer mixed case object names - SomeThing rather than SOMETHING.

Consistency is the BP.

Andy





Andy
SQLAndy - My Blog!
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Follow me on Twitter
Post #22163
Posted Wednesday, October 24, 2001 8:08 AM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, January 27, 2003 12:00 AM
Points: 1, Visits: 1
I think that you have to keep the current implementation of databases, must of us do not start a new implementation, if you do it,is ok. The user do not have to see complicated names in yours columns as we know. No one is going to change an aplication and columns name because the notation is not as BP or WP.

Jose Galan
joseg@pharmed.com





Post #22164
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase ««12345»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse