Let's say I have a database in which one entity (i.e. table) inherits from another one, for example:
Table 1, named person: (name,surname)
Table 2, named car_owner
In this case, car_owner inherits from person, i.e. a car-owner IS a person.
I'm now in a point where I have to decide whether I should:
create the table car_owner, even though it has no extra columns except the ones in person, although in the future this might change => doing this results in car_owner = table with columns (id,person_id), where person_id is FK to person
or
leave only the person table for now and only do (1) when/if extra information regarding a car-owner will appear => note that if I do this FKs to a car-owner from other tables would actually be FKs to the person table
The tables I'm dealing with have different names and semantics and the choice between (1) and (2) is not clear, because the need for extra columns in car_owner might never pop-up.
Conceptually, (1) seems to be the right choice, but I guess what I'm asking is if there are any serious issues I might run into later if I instead resort to (2)
I would suggest that option 1 is the better answer. While it creates more work to join the tables for queries, it is neater to put "optional" data in it's own table. And if more types of persons are required (pedestrian, car_driver, car_passenger) they can be accommodated with more child tables. You can always use a view to make them look like one table.
BTW for databases, we say Parent and Child, not "inherets".
To answer the part about problems/consequences of option 2 - well, none too serious. This is a database, so you can always re-arrange things later, but there will be a price to pay in rewriting queries and code if you restructure tables. Why I don't like Option 2 is because it can lead to extra tables not re-using the person part. If it looks like that table is for car_owners, I might make an entirely new table for car_passengers with duplication of all the person columns.
In short, nothing too tragic should happen with either approach, they are each preferable for different reasons and the drawbacks are mainly inconvenience and potential future messiness.
I'm having what some would call a rather strange problem/question.
Suppose I have a table, which may reference one (and only one) of many different other tables. How would I do that in the best way?? I'm looking for a solution which should work in a majority of databases (MS SQL, MySQL, PostgreSQL etc). The way I see it, there are a couple of different solutions (is any better than the other?):
Have one column for each possible reference. Only one of these columns may contain a value for any given row, all others are null. Allows for strict foreign keys, but it gets tedious when the number of "many" (possible referenced tables) gets large
Have a two column relationship, i.e. one column "describing" which table is referenced, and one referencing the instance (row in that table). Easily extended when the number of "many" (referenced tables) grows, though I can't perform single query lookup in a straightforward way (either left join all possible tables, or union multiple queries which joins towards one table each)
??
Make sense? What's best practise (if any) in this case?
I specifically want to be able to query data from the referenced entity, without really knowing which of the tables are being referenced.
How would you do?
Both of these methods are suitable in any relational database, so you don't have to worry about that consideration. Both result in rather cumbersome queries. For the first method:
select . . .
from t left outer join
ref1
on t.ref1id = ref1.ref1id left outer join
ref2
on t.ref2id = ref2.ref2id . . .
For the second method:
select . . .
from t left outer join
ref1
on t.anyid = ref1.ref1id and anytype = 'ref1' left outer join
ref2
on t.anyid = ref2.ref2id and anytype = 'ref2' . . .
So, from the perspective of query simplicity, I don't see a major advantage for one versus the other. The second version has a small disadvantage -- when writing queries, you have to remember what the name is for the join. This might get lost over time. (Of course, you can use constraints or triggers to ensure that only a fixed set of values make it into the column.)
From the perspective of query performance, the first version has a major advantage. You can identify the column as a foreign key and the database can keep statistics on it. This can help the database choose the right join algorithm, for instance. The second method does not readily offer this possibility.
From the perspective of data size, the first version requires storing the id for each of the possible values. The second is more compact. From the perspective of maintainability, the first is hard to add a new object type; the second is easy.
If you have a set of things that are similar to each other, then you can consider storing them in a single table. Attributes that are not appropriate can be NULLed out. You can even create views for the different flavors of the thing. One table may or may not be an option.
In other words, there is no right answer to this question. As with many aspects of database design, it depends on how the data is going to be used. Absent other information, I would probably first try to coerce the data into a single table. If that is just not reasonable, I would go with the first option if the number of tables can be counted on one hand, and the second if there are more tables.
1)
This is legitimate for small number of static tables. If you anticipate a number of new tables might need to be added in the future, take a look at 3) below...
2)
Please don't do that. You'd be forfeiting the declarative FOREIGN KEYs, which is one of the most important mechanisms for maintaining data integrity.
3)
Use inheritance. More info in this post:
What is the best design for a database table that can be owned by two different resources, and therefore needs two different foreign keys?
You might also be interested in looking at:
Implementing comments and Likes in database
Multiple one to many relationship design
How to avoid multiple tables tables to relations M: M?
database table design thoughts
Relating two database tables (associating an employee with an activity)
How to structure table Activities in a database?
My application has one table called 'events' and each event has approx 30 standard fields, but also user defined fields that could be any name or type, in an 'eventdata' table. Users can define these event data tables, by specifying x number of fields (either text/double/datetime/boolean) and the names of these fields. This 'eventdata' (table) can be different for each 'event'.
My current approach is to create a lookup table for the definitions. So if i need to query all 'event' and 'eventdata' per record, i do so in a M-D relaitionship using two queries (i.e. select * from events, then for each record in 'events', select * from 'some table').
Is there a better approach to doing this? I have implemented this so far, but most of my queries require two distinct calls to the DB - i cannot simply join my master 'events' table with different 'eventdata' tables for each record in in 'events'.
I guess my main question is: can i join my master table with different detail tables for each record?
E.g.
SELECT E.*, E.Tablename
FROM events E
LEFT JOIN 'E.tablename' T ON E._ID = T.ID
If not, is there a better way to design my database considering i have no idea on how many user defined fields there may be and what type they will be.
There are four ways of handling this.
Add several additional fields named "Custom1", "Custom2", "Custom3", etc. These should have a datatype of varchar(?) or similiar
Add a field to hold the unstructured data (like an XML column).
Create a table of name /value pairs which are associated with some type of template. Let them manage the template. You'll have to use pivot tables or similiar to get the data out.
Use a database like MongoDB or another NoSql style product to store this.
The above said, The first one has the advantage of being fast but limits the number of custom fields to the number you defined. Older main frame type applications work this way. SalesForce CRM used to.
The second option means that each record can have it's own custom fields. However, depending on your database there are definite challenges here. Tried this, don't recommend it.
The third one is generally harder to code for but allows for extreme flexibility. SalesForce and other applications have gone this route; including a couple I'm responsible for. The downside is that Microsoft apparently acquired a patent on doing things this way and is in the process of suing a few companies over it. Personally, I think that's bullcrap; but whatever. Point is, use at your own risk.
The fourth option is interesting. We've played with it a bit and the performance is great while coding is pretty darn simple. This might be your best bet for the unstructured data.
Those type of joins won't work because you will need to pivot the eventdata table to make it columns instead of rows. Therefore it depends on which database technology you are using.
Here is an example with MySQL: How to pivot a MySQL entity-attribute-value schema
My approach would be to avoid using a different table for each event, if that's possible.
I would use something like:
Event (EventId, ..., ...)
EventColumnType (EventColumnTypeId, EventTypeId, ColumnName)
EventColumnData (EventColumnTypeId, Data)
You are them limited to the type of data you can store (everything would have to be strings, for example), but you the number of events and columns are unrestricted.
What I'm getting from your description is you have an event table, and then a separate EventData table for each and every event.
Rather than that, why not have a single EventCustomFields table that contains a foreign key to the event table, a field Name (event+field being the PK) and a field value.
Sure it's not the best. You'd be stuck serializing the value or storing everything as a string. And you'd still be stuck doing two queries, one for the event table and one to get it's custom fields, but at least you wouldn't have a new table for every event in the system (yuck x10)
Another, (arguably worse) option is to serialize the custom fields into a single column of the and then deserialize when you need. So your query would be something like
Select E.*, C.*
From events E, customFields C
Where E.ID = C.ID
Is it possible to just impose a limit on your users? I know the tables underneath Sharepoint 2007 had a bunch of columns for custom data that were just named like CustomString1, CustomDate2, etc. That may end up easier than some of the approaches above, where everything is in one column (though that's an approach I've taken as well), and I would think it would scale up better.
The answer to your main question is: no. You can't have different rows in the result set with different columns. The result set is kind of like a table, so each row has to have the same columns. You can fake it with padding and dummy columns, but that's probably not much better.
You could try defining a fixed event data table, with (say) ten of each type of column. Then you'd store the usage metadata in a separate table and just read that in at system startup. The metadata would tell you that event type "foo" has a field "name" mapped to column string0 in the event data table, a field named "reporter" mapped to column string1, and a field named "reportDate" mapped to column date0. It's ugly and wastes space, but it's reasonably flexible. If you're in charge of the database, you can even define a view on the table so to the client it looks like a "normal" table. If the clients create their own tables and just stick the table name in the event record, then obviously this won't fly.
If you're really hardcore you can write a database procedure to query the table structures and serialize everything to a lilst of key/type/value tuples and return that in one long string as the last column, but that's probably not much handier than what you're doing now.
I have to add functionality to an existing application and I've run into a data situation that I'm not sure how to model. I am being restricted to the creation of new tables and code. If I need to alter the existing structure I think my client may reject the proposal.. although if its the only way to get it right this is what I will have to do.
I have an Item table that can me link to any number of tables, and these tables may increase over time. The Item can only me linked to one other table, but the record in the other table may have many items linked to it.
Examples of the tables/entities being linked to are Person, Vehicle, Building, Office. These are all separate tables.
Example of Items are Pen, Stapler, Cushion, Tyre, A4 Paper, Plastic Bag, Poster, Decoration"
For instance a Poster may be allocated to a Person or Office or Building. In the future if they add a Conference Room table it may also be added to that.
My intital thoughts are:
Item
{
ID,
Name
}
LinkedItem
{
ItemID,
LinkedToTableName,
LinkedToID
}
The LinkedToTableName field will then allow me to identify the correct table to link to in my code.
I'm not overly happy with this solution, but I can't quite think of anything else. Please help! :)
Thanks!
It is not a good practice to store table names as column values. This is a bad hack.
There are two standard ways of doing what you are trying to do. The first is called single-table inheritance. This is easily understood by ORM tools but trades off some normalization. The idea is, that all of these entities - Person, Vehicle, whatever - are stored in the same table, often with several unused columns per entry, along with a discriminator field that identifies what type the entity is.
The discriminator field is usually an integer type, that is mapped to some enumeration in your code. It may also be a foreign key to some lookup table in your database, identifying which numbers correspond to which types (not table names, just descriptions).
The other way to do this is multiple-table inheritance, which is better for your database but not as easy to map in code. You do this by having a base table which defines some common properties of all the objects - perhaps just an ID and a name - and all of your "specific" tables (Person etc.) use the base ID as a unique foreign key (usually also the primary key).
In the first case, the exclusivity is implicit, since all entities are in one table. In the second case, the relationship is between the Item and the base entity ID, which also guarantees uniqueness.
Note that with multiple-table inheritance, you have a different problem - you can't guarantee that a base ID is used by exactly one inheritance table. It could be used by several, or not used at all. That is why multiple-table inheritance schemes usually also have a discriminator column, to identify which table is "expected." Again, this discriminator doesn't hold a table name, it holds a lookup value which the consumer may (or may not) use to determine which other table to join to.
Multiple-table inheritance is a closer match to your current schema, so I would recommend going with that unless you need to use this with Linq to SQL or a similar ORM.
See here for a good detailed tutorial: Implementing Table Inheritance in SQL Server.
Find something common to Person, Vehicle, Building, Office. For the lack of a better term I have used Entity. Then implement super-type/sub-type relationship between the Entity and its sub-types. Note that the EntityID is a PK and a FK in all sub-type tables. Now, you can link the Item table to the Entity (owner).
In this model, one item can belong to only one Entity; one Entity can have (own) many items.
your link table is ok.
the trouble you will have is that you will need to generate dynamic sql at runtime. parameterized sql does not typically allow the objects inthe FROM list to be parameters.
i fyou want to avoid this, you may be able to denormalize a little - say by creating a table to hold the id (assuming the ids are unique across the other tables) and the type_id representing which table is the source, and a generated description - e.g. the name value from the inital record.
you would trigger the creation of this denormalized list when the base info is modified, and you could use that for generalized queries - and then resort to your dynamic queries when needed at runtime.
I was wondering peoples opinions on the naming of ID columns in database tables.
If I have a table called Invoices with a primary key of an identity column I would call that column InvoiceID so that I would not conflict with other tables and it's obvious what it is.
Where I am workind current they have called all ID columns ID.
So they would do the following:
Select
i.ID
, il.ID
From
Invoices i
Left Join InvoiceLines il
on i.ID = il.InvoiceID
Now, I see a few problems here:
1. You would need to alias the columns on the select
2. ID = InvoiceID does not fit in my brain
3. If you did not alias the tables and referred to InvoiceID is it obvious what table it is on?
What are other peoples thoughts on the topic?
I always prefered ID to TableName + ID for the id column and then TableName + ID for a foreign key. That way all tables have a the same name for the id field and there isn't a redundant description. This seems simpler to me because all the tables have the same primary key field name.
As far as joining tables and not knowing which Id field belongs to which table, in my opinion the query should be written to handle this situation. Where I work, we always prefece the fields we use in a statement with the table/table alias.
Theres been a nerd fight about this very thing in my company of late. The advent of LINQ has made the redundant tablename+ID pattern even more obviously silly in my eyes. I think most reasonable people will say that if you're hand writing your SQL in such a manner as that you have to specify table names to differentiate FKs then it's not only a savings on typing, but it adds clarity to your SQL to use just the ID in that you can clearly see which is the PK and which is the FK.
E.g.
FROM Employees e
LEFT JOIN Customers c ON e.ID = c.EmployeeID
tells me not only that the two are linked, but which is the PK and which is the FK. Whereas in the old style you're forced to either look or hope that they were named well.
ID is a SQL Antipattern.
See http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_5?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=sql+antipatterns&sprefix=sql+a
If you have many tables with ID as the id you are making reporting that much more difficult. It obscures meaning and makes complex queries harder to read as well as requiring you to use aliases to differentiate on the report itself.
Further if someone is foolish enough to use a natural join in a database where they are available, you will join to the wrong records.
If you would like to use the USING syntax that some dbs allow, you cannot if you use ID.
If you use ID you can easily end up with a mistaken join if you happen to be copying the join syntax (don't tell me that no one ever does this!)and forget to change the alias in the join condition.
So you now have
select t1.field1, t2.field2, t3.field3
from table1 t1
join table2 t2 on t1.id = t2.table1id
join table3 t3 on t1.id = t3.table2id
when you meant
select t1.field1, t2.field2, t3.field3
from table1 t1
join table2 t2 on t1.id = t2.table1id
join table3 t3 on t2.id = t3.table2id
If you use tablenameID as the id field, this kind of accidental mistake is far less likely to happen and much easier to find.
We use InvoiceID, not ID. It makes queries more readable -- when you see ID alone it could mean anything, especially when you alias the table to i.
I agree with Keven and a few other people here that the PK for a table should simply be Id and foreign keys list the OtherTable + Id.
However I wish to add one reason which recently gave more weight to this arguement.
In my current position we are employing the entity framework using POCO generation. Using the standard naming convention of Id the the PK allows for inheritance of a base poco class with validation and such for tables which share a set of common column names. Using the Tablename + Id as the PK for each of these tables destroys the ability to use a base class for these.
Just some food for thought.
It's not really important, you are likely to run into simalar problems in all naming conventions.
But it is important to be consistent so you don't have to look at the table definitions every time you write a query.
My preference is also ID for primary key and TableNameID for foreign key. I also like to have a column "name" in most tables where I hold the user readable identifier (i.e. name :-)) of the entry. This structure offers great flexibility in the application itself, I can handle tables in mass, in the same way. This is a very powerful thing. Usually an OO software is built on top of the database, but the OO toolset cannot be applied because the db itself does not allow it. Having the columns id and name is still not very good, but it is a step.
Select
i.ID , il.ID From
Invoices i
Left Join InvoiceLines il
on i.ID = il.InvoiceID
Why cant I do this?
Select
Invoices.ID
, InvoiceLines.ID
From
Invoices
Left Join InvoiceLines
on Invoices.ID = InvoiceLines.InvoiceID
In my opinion this is very much readable and simple. Naming variables as i and il is a poor choice in general.
I just started working in a place that uses only "ID" (in the core tables, referenced by TableNameID in foreign keys), and have already found TWO production problems directly caused by it.
In one case the query used "... where ID in (SELECT ID FROM OtherTable ..." instead of "... where ID in (SELECT TransID FROM OtherTable ...".
Can anyone honestly say that wouldn't have been much easier to spot if full, consistent names were used where the wrong statement would have read "... where TransID in (SELECT OtherTableID from OtherTable ..."? I don't think so.
The other issue occurs when refactoring code. If you use a temp table whereas previously the query went off a core table then the old code reads "... dbo.MyFunction(t.ID) ..." and if that is not changed but "t" now refers to a temp table instead of the core table, you don't even get an error - just erroneous results.
If generating unnecessary errors is a goal (maybe some people don't have enough work?), then this kind of naming convention is great. Otherwise consistent naming is the way to go.
I personally prefer (as it has been stated above) the Table.ID for the PK and TableID for the FK. Even (please don't shoot me) Microsoft Access recommends this.
HOWEVER, I ALSO know for a fact that some generating tools favor the TableID for PK because they tend to link all column name that contain 'ID' in the word, INCLUDING ID!!!
Even the query designer does this on Microsoft SQL Server (and for each query you create, you end up ripping off all the unnecessary newly created relationships on all tables on column ID)
THUS as Much as my internal OCD hates it, I roll with the TableID convention. Let's remember that it's called a Data BASE, as it will be the base for hopefully many many many applications to come. And all technologies Should benefit of a well normalized with clear description Schema.
It goes without saying that I DO draw my line when people start using TableName, TableDescription and such. In My opinion, conventions should do the following:
Table name: Pluralized. Ex. Employees
Table alias: Full table Name, singularized. Ex.
SELECT Employee.*, eMail.Address
FROM Employees AS Employee LEFT JOIN eMails as eMail on Employee.eMailID = eMail.eMailID -- I would sure like it to just have the eMail.ID here.... but oh well
[Update]
Also, there are some valid posts in this thread about duplicated columns due of the "kind of relationship" or role. Example, if a Store has an EmployeeID, that tells me squat. So I sometimes do something like Store.EmployeeID_Manager. Sure it's a bit larger but at leas people won't go crazy trying to find table ManagerID, or what EmployeeID is doing there. When querying is WHERE I would simplify it as:
SELECT EmployeeID_Manager as ManagerID FROM Store
For the sake of simplicity most people name the column on the table ID. If it has a foreign key reference on another table, then they explicity call it InvoiceID (to use your example) in the case of joins, you are aliasing the table anyway so the explicit inv.ID is still simpler than inv.InvoiceID
Coming at this from the perspective of a formal data dictionary, I would name the data element invoice_ID. Generally, a data element name will be unique in the data dictionary and ideally will have the same name throughout, though sometimes additional qualifying terms may be required based on context e.g. the data element named employee_ID could be used twice in the org chart and therefore qualified as supervisor_employee_ID and subordinate_employee_ID respectively.
Obviously, naming conventions are subjective and a matter of style. I've find ISO/IEC 11179 guidelines to be a useful starting point.
For the DBMS, I see tables as collections of entites (except those that only ever contain one row e.g. cofig table, table of constants, etc) e.g. the table where my employee_ID is the key would be named Personnel. So straight away the TableNameID convention doesn't work for me.
I've seen the TableName.ID=PK TableNameID=FK style used on large data models and have to say I find it slightly confusing: I much prefer an identifier's name be the same throughout i.e. does not change name based on which table it happens to appear in. Something to note is the aforementioned style seems to be used in the shops which add an IDENTITY (auto-increment) column to every table while shunning natural and compound keys in foreign keys. Those shops tend not to have formal data dictionaries nor build from data models. Again, this is merely a question of style and one to which I don't personally subscribe. So ultimately, it's not for me.
All that said, I can see a case for sometimes dropping the qualifier from the column name when the table's name provides a context for doing so e.g. the element named employee_last_name may become simply last_name in the Personnel table. The rationale here is that the domain is 'people's last names' and is more likely to be UNIONed with last_name columns from other tables rather than be used as a foreign key in another table, but then again... I might just change my mind, sometimes you can never tell. That's the thing: data modelling is part art, part science.
My vote is for InvoiceID for the table ID. I also use the same naming convention when it's used as a foreign key and use intelligent alias names in the queries.
Select Invoice.InvoiceID, Lines.InvoiceLine, Customer.OrgName
From Invoices Invoice
Join InvoiceLines Lines on Lines.InvoiceID = Invoice.InvoiceID
Join Customers Customer on Customer.CustomerID = Invoice.CustomerID
Sure, it's longer than some other examples. But smile. This is for posterity and someday, some poor junior coder is going to have to alter your masterpiece. In this example there is no ambiguity and as additional tables get added to the query, you'll be grateful for the verbosity.
FWIW, our new standard (which changes, uh, I mean "evolves", with every new project) is:
Lower case database field names
Uppercase table names
Use underscores to separate words in the field name - convert these to Pascal case in code.
pk_ prefix means primary key
_id suffix means an integer, auto-increment ID
fk_ prefix means foreign key (no suffix necessary)
_VW suffix for views
is_ prefix for booleans
So, a table named NAMES might have the fields pk_name_id, first_name, last_name, is_alive, and fk_company and a view called LIVING_CUSTOMERS_VW, defined like:
SELECT first_name, last_name
FROM CONTACT.NAMES
WHERE (is_alive = 'True')
As others have said, though, just about any scheme will work as long as it is consistent and doesn't unnecessarily obfuscate your meanings.
There are lots of answers on this already, but I wanted to add two major things that I haven't seen above:
Customers coming to you for support.
Many times a customer or user or even dev of another department have hit a snag and have contacted us saying they're having a problem doing an operation. We ask them what record they're having a problem with. Now, the data they see on the screen, e.g. a grid with customer name, number of orders, destination etc is an aggregate of many tables. They say they've having trouble with id 83. There's no way to know what id that is, which table it is, if it's just called 'id'.
Namely, a row of data does not give any indication which table it is from. Unless you happen to know the schema of your database well, which is rarely the case on complex systems or non-greenfield systems you've been told to take over, you don't know what id=83 means even if you have more data like name, address, etc (which might not even be in the same table!).
This id could be coming from a grid, or it could be coming from an error in your API, or a faulty query dumping the error message to the screen, or to a log file.
Often a developer just dumps 'ID' into a column and forgets about it, and often DBs have many similar tables like Invoice, InvoiceGrouping, InvoicePlan and the ID could be for any of them. In frustration you look in the code to see which one it is, and see that they've called it Id on the model as well, so you then have to dig into how the model for the page was constructed. I cannot count how many times I've had to do this to figure out what an Id is. It's a lot. Sometimes you have to dig out a SPROC as well that just returns 'Id' as a header. Nightmare.
Log files are easier when it's clear what went wrong
Often SQL can give pretty crappy error messages. "Could not insert item with ID 83, column would be truncated" or something like that is very hard to debug. Often error messages are not very helpful, but usually the thing that broke will make a vague attempt to tell you what record was broken by just dumping out the primary key name and the value. If it's "ID" then it doesn't really help at all.
This is just two things that I didn't feel were mentioned in the other answers.
I also think that a lot of comments are 'if you program in X way then this isn't an issue', and I think the points above (and other points on this question) are valid specifically because of the way people program and because they don't have the time, energy, budget and foresight to program in perfect logging and error handling or change engrained habits of quick SQL and code writing.
I definitely agree with including the table name in the ID field name, for exactly the reasons you give. Generally, this is the only field where I would include the table name.
I do hate the plain id name. I strongly prefer to always use the invoice_id or a variant thereof. I always know which table is the authoritative table for the id when I need to, but this confuses me
SELECT * from Invoice inv, InvoiceLine inv_l where
inv_l.InvoiceID = inv.ID
SELECT * from Invoice inv, InvoiceLine inv_l where
inv_l.ID = inv.InvoiceLineID
SELECT * from Invoice inv, InvoiceLine inv_l where
inv_l.ID = inv.InvoiceID
SELECT * from Invoice inv, InvoiceLine inv_l where
inv_l.InvoiceLineID = inv.ID
What's worst of all is the mix you mention, totally confusing. I've had to work with a database where almost always it was foo_id except in one of the most used ids. That was total hell.
I think you can use anything for the "ID" as long as you're consistent. Including the table name is important to. I would suggest using a modeling tool like Erwin to enforce the naming conventions and standards so when writing queries it's easy to understand the relationships that may exist between tables.
What I mean by the first statement is, instead of ID you can use something else like 'recno'. So then this table would have a PK of invoice_recno and so on.
Cheers,
Ben
For the column name in the database, I'd use "InvoiceID".
If I copy the fields into a unnamed struct via LINQ, I may name it "ID" there, if it's the only ID in the structure.
If the column is NOT going to be used in a foreign key, so that it's only used to uniquely identify a row for edit editing or deletion, I'll name it "PK".
If you give each key a unique name, e.g. "invoices.invoice_id" instead of "invoices.id", then you can use the "natural join" and "using" operators with no worries. E.g.
SELECT * FROM invoices NATURAL JOIN invoice_lines
SELECT * FROM invoices JOIN invoice_lines USING (invoice_id)
instead of
SELECT * from invoices JOIN invoice_lines
ON invoices.id = invoice_lines.invoice_id
SQL is verbose enough without making it more verbose.
What I do to keep things consistent for myself (where a table has a single column primary key used as the ID) is to name the primary key of the table Table_pk. Anywhere I have a foreign key pointing to that tables primary key, I call the column PrimaryKeyTable_fk. That way I know that if I have a Customer_pk in my Customer table and a Customer_fk in my Order table, I know that the Order table is referring to an entry in the Customer table.
To me, this makes sense especially for joins where I think it reads easier.
SELECT *
FROM Customer AS c
INNER JOIN Order AS c ON c.Customer_pk = o.Customer_fk
I prefer DomainName || 'ID'. (i.e. DomainName + ID)
DomainName is often, but not always, the same as TableName.
The problem with ID all by itself is that it doesn't scale upwards. Once you have about 200 tables, each with a first column named ID, the data begins to look all alike. If you always qualify ID with the table name, that helps a little, but not that much.
DomainName & ID can be used to name foreign keys as well as primary keys. When foriegn keys are named after the column that they reference, that can be of mnemonic assistance. Formally, tying the name of a foreign key to the key it references is not necessary, since the referential integrity constrain will establish the reference. But it's awfully handy when it comes to reading queries and updates.
Occasionally, DomainName || 'ID' can't be used, because there would be two columns in the same table with the same name. Example: Employees.EmployeeID and Employees.SupervisorID. In those cases, I use RoleName || 'ID', as in the example.
Last but not least, I use natural keys rather than synthetic keys when possible. There are situations where natural keys are unavailable or untrustworthy, but there are plenty of situations where the natural key is the right choice. In those cases, I let the natural key take on the name it would naturally have. This name often doesn't even have the letters, 'ID' in it. Example: OrderNo where No is an abbreviation for "Number".
For each table I choose a tree letter shorthand(e.g. Employees => Emp)
That way a numeric autonumber primary key becomes nkEmp.
It is short, unique in the entire database and I know exactly its properties at a glance.
I keep the same names in SQL and all languages I use (mostly C#, Javascript, VB6).
See the Interakt site's naming conventions for a well thought out system of naming tables and columns. The method makes use of a suffix for each table (_prd for a product table, or _ctg for a category table) and appends that to each column in a given table. So the identity column for the products table would be id_prd and is therefore unique in the database.
They go one step further to help with understanding the foreign keys: The foreign key in the product table that refers to the category table would be idctg_prd so that it is obvious to which table it belong (_prd suffix) and to which table it refers (category).
Advantages are that there is no ambiguity with the identity columns in different tables, and that you can tell at a glance which columns a query is referring to by the column names.
You could use the following naming convention. It has its flaws but it solves your particular problems.
Use short (3-4 characters) nicknames for the table names, i.e. Invoice - inv, InvoiceLines - invl
Name the columns in the table using those nicknames, i.e. inv_id, invl_id
For the reference columns use invl_inv_id for the names.
this way you could say
SELECT * FROM Invoice LEFT JOIN InvoiceLines ON inv_id = invl_inv_id