Singular or Plural

Question

Post reply

Singular or Plural

Viewing 7 posts - 76 through 81 (of 81 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

Eric M Russell SSC Guru Points: 125522 More actions · Answer 1

This seems like a discussion from just the other day - but it was actually six years ago!

Here is my thinking about it:

Some tables represent entities that are "top level" like the following, and a singular name just sounds right.

Customer (CustomerID), Account (AccountID), Inventory (ItemID)

Other tables exist only in relation to a top level table. Their primary key is basically a combination of foreign keys, and a plural name makes more sense.

Orders (CustomerID,ItemID,OrderTime), Payments (AccountID,PaymentTime), Visits (PatientID,ScheduleTime)

"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho

Aaron N. Cutshall SSCrazy Eights Points: 8992 More actions · Answer 2

From one perspective, it really doesn't matter which method you choose as long as you're consistent. However, if you choose pluralism, it becomes difficult to maintain consistency.

For example, I have a table called Customers and another called Addresses which stores all sorts of addresses. For customer-specific addresses, to maintain consistency, the relationship table would end up being CustomersAddresses. The naming gets really awkward really quickly the more you do it.

Therefore, I personally prefer that the entity name reflect what is represented in a single record. If a single record represents a multiple of something (which would not follow data normalization rules) then let the entity name reflect that. Therefore, the name Customer, Address, and CustomerAddress become more appropriate and useful.

I completely disagree with the notion that a singular entity name could lead one to perform RBAR processing. If it does, then you have more issues than a magazine! 😋

LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/sqlrv
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/sqlrv
Website: http://sqlrv.com

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 734459 More actions · Answer 3

I have habits to use plural, but I've come to think singular makes more sense, especially in cases like Aaron listed where you create a join table.

sqlrider SSC Journeyman Points: 79 More actions · Answer 4

I use singular - but will happily work with anything other than the naming convention of Oracle JDE tables I once had to work with - F0411, F300261 etc. Yeah, you get used to the common ones, but still, urgh!

https://sqlrider.net - My technical blog

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1003867 More actions · Answer 5

Aaron N. Cutshall wrote:

From one perspective, it really doesn't matter which method you choose as long as you're consistent. However, if you choose pluralism, it becomes difficult to maintain consistency.
For example, I have a table called Customers and another called Addresses which stores all sorts of addresses. For customer-specific addresses, to maintain consistency, the relationship table would end up being CustomersAddresses. The naming gets really awkward really quickly the more you do it.
Therefore, I personally prefer that the entity name reflect what is represented in a single record. If a single record represents a multiple of something (which would not follow data normalization rules) then let the entity name reflect that. Therefore, the name Customer, Address, and CustomerAddress become more appropriate and useful.
I completely disagree with the notion that a singular entity name could lead one to perform RBAR processing. If it does, then you have more issues than a magazine! 😋

I'm on the sigular-naming thing, as well. I normally name tables after what 1 row contains (The "Tally" and "Calendar" tables are examples of exceptions...).

To emphasize your example, I hate the names that occur when a table is called "Companies". Then, you would end up with CompaniesAddresses.

And, yeah... I agree with your point on RBAR... big time!

--Jeff Moden

RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a ROW... think, instead, of what you want to do to a COLUMN.

Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to Post Performance Problems
Create a Tally Function (fnTally)

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 734459 More actions · Answer 6

sqlrider wrote:

I use singular - but will happily work with anything other than the naming convention of Oracle JDE tables I once had to work with - F0411, F300261 etc. Yeah, you get used to the common ones, but still, urgh!

I worked there in Operations and I was appalled by their naming. It's still the best example I have of why you don't need to rename things, but should do your best to get them right early.

Steve Collins SSCrazy Points: 2069 More actions · Answer 7

Plural. Each row is a singular instance

Aus dem Paradies, das Cantor uns geschaffen, soll uns niemand vertreiben können