• Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

Names and Performance

 
Stan James
(instanceof Sidekick)
Ranch Hand
Posts: 8791
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I'll apologize ahead of time if any of you are corporate data modelers, but ours have evolved a set of naming standards that make me want to chew my leg off to get away. Most of them seem to be about shortening names as much as possible. There are several pages of accepted abbreviations, like stts for status.

Does the database perform any differently at all with shorter names? I started with DB2 when Date's Guide to DB2 first edition was current, and there might have been some real limits on name lengths then. Are there still such limits? Any good reasons we don't name db columns just like Java fields - to try to communicate something? Don't the Rails (and other automated OR) users do that?
 
Jan Cumps
Bartender
Posts: 2602
13
C++ Linux Netbeans IDE
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
There are limits. Your database's documentation will mention them. For Oracle it is (or was?) 30 chars.

But I haven't ever seen measurable impact of using full-blown fieldnames.
We do abbreviate item_id, cust_no, and the like, but always strive for meaningfull, readable names.

Regards, Jan
 
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic