PostgreSQL has allowed me to name a column "campaign_$". I like the name because it's short and to the point, and other potential names like "campaign_receipts" seem longer and less clear.
BUT, I wonder if I'll eventually regret putting a $ symbol in a column name, either in PHP or in some other distant part of the architecture. Should I just stick to letters and underscores?
Thanks!
Yes, you should. "campaign_receipts" is a better name.
You probably won't regret, but I still wouldn't recommend it.
What happens when you expand into Europe?
Also, it will look strange and confusing to new developers.
In addition to the other excellent reasons I'll also mention that "$" in my mind is not clear at all. Does that mean campaign expenses? Campaign savings? Campaign values?
There's a VERY strong convention that tables and columns are named using only letters, numbers, and (possibly) underscores, so I would consider this poor style. Beyond the i18n concerns that other posters mention, there are probably a very large number of tools that expect table and column names following this convention.
I think it is bad practice to put special characters into a column name. Just spell out the word like campaign_money or campaign_funds and then the issue of internationalization or other possible issues become a thing of the past.
It should be fine, however it may cause you more problems down the line when you want to export the data to another system, things like that.
It's good to get into the habbit of naming columns/variables etc with no special characters, as usually they are more trouble than they are worth.
I wouldn't use it.
The "$" might not be valid in future databases you use (at some point you might migrate away from PostgreSQL to something else) and it also might pose problems at the application level if you do anything that maps column names to object properties if your programming language doesn't allow method names to have "$" in them.
Just my suggestion.
Related
What is a scenario that exemplifies a good reason to use prefixes, such as fn_GetName, on function names in SQL Server? It would seem that it would be unnecessary since usually the context of its usage would make it clear that it's a function. I have not used any other language that has ever needed prefixes on functions, and I can't think of a good scenario that would show why SQL is any different.
My only thinking is that perhaps in older IDE's it was useful for grouping functions together when the database objects were all listed together, but modern IDE's already make it clear what is a function.
You are correct about older IDEs
As a DBA, trying to fix permissions using SQL Server Enterprise Manager (SQL Server 2000 and 7.0), it was complete bugger trying to view permissions. If you had ufn or usp or vw it became easier to group things together because of how the GUI presented the data.
Saying that, if you have SELECT * FROM Thing, what is Thing? A view or a table? It may work for you as a developer but it will crash when deployed because you don't grant permissions on the table itself: only views or procs. Surely a vwThing will keep your blood pressure down...?
If you use schemas, it becomes irrelevant. You can "namespace" your objects. For example, tables in "Data" and other objects per client in other schemas eg WebGUI
Edit:
Function. You have table valued and scalar functions. If you stick with the code "VerbNoun" concept, how do you know which is which without some other clue. (of course, this can't happen because object names are unique)
SELECT dbo.GetName() FROM MyTable
SELECT * FROM dbo.GetName()
If you use a plural to signify a table valued function, this is arguably worse
SELECT dbo.GetName() FROM MyTable
SELECT * FROM dbo.GetNames()
Whereas this is less ambiguous, albeit offensive to some folk ;-)
SELECT dbo.sfnGetName() FROM MyTable
SELECT * FROM dbo.tfnGetName()
With schemas. And no name ambiguity.
SELECT ScalarFN.GetName() FROM MyTable
SELECT * FROM TableFN.GetName()
Your "any other language" comment doesn't apply. SQL isn't structured like c#, Java, f#, Ada (OK, PL/SQL might be), VBA, whatever: there is no object or namespace hierarchy. No Object.DoStuff method stuff.
A prefix may be just the thing to keep you sane...
There's no need to prefix function names with fn_ any more than there's a need to prefix table names with t_ (a convention I have seen). This sort of systematic prefix tends to be used by people who are not yet comfortable with the language and who need the convention as an extra help to understanding the code.
Like all naming conventions, it hardly matters what the convention actually is. What really matter is to be consistent. So even if the convention is wrong, it is still important to stick to it for consistency. Yes, it may be argued that if the naming convention is wrong then it should be changed, but the effort implies a lot: rename all objects, change source code, all maintenance procedures, get the dev team committed to follow the new convention, have all the support and ops personnel follow the new rules etc etc. On a large org, the effort to change a well established naming convention is just simply overwhelming.
I don't know what your situation is, but you should consider carefully before proposing a naming convention change just for sake of 'pretty'. No matter how bad the existing naming convention in your org is, is far better to stick to it and keep the naming consistency than to ignore it and start your own.
Of course, more often than not, the naming convention is not only bad, is also not followed and names are inconsistent. In that case, sucks to be you...
What is a scenario that exemplifies a
good reason to use prefixes
THere is none. People do all kind of stuff because they always did so, and quite a number of bad habits are explained with ancient knowledge that is wrong for many years.
I'm not a fan of prefixes, but perhaps one advantage could be that these fn_ prefixes might make it easier to identify that a particular function is user-defined, rather than in-built.
We had many painful meetings at our company about this. IMO, we don't need prefixes on any object names. However, you could make an argument for putting them on views, if the name of the view might conflict with the underlying table name.
In any case, there is no SQL requirement that prefixes be used, and frankly, IMO, they have no real value.
As others have noticed, any scenario you define can easily be challenged, so there's no rule defining it as necessary; however, there's equally no rule saying it's unnecessary, either. Like all naming conventions, it's more important to have consistent usage rather than justification.
One (and the only) advantage I can think of is that it a consequently applied prefixing scheme could make using intellisense / autocomplete easier since related functionality is automagically grouped together.
Since I recently stumbled over this question, I'd like to add the following point in favour of prefixes: Imagine, you have some object id from some system table and you want to determine whether it's a function, proc, view etc. You could of course run a test for each type, it's much easier though to extract the prefix from the object name and then act upon that. This gets even easier when you use an underscore to separate the prefix from the name, e.g. usp_Foo instead of uspFoo. IMHO it's not just about stupid IDEs.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
How can I train myself to give better variable and function names (any user-defined name in a program).
Practice.
Always be thinking about it whenever you write or read code, including other people's code. Try to figure out what you would do differently in their code and talk to them about it, when possible (but don't harp on it, that would be a nuisance). Ask them questions about why they picked a certain name.
See how well your code reads without comments. If you ever need to comment on the basic purpose of something you named, consider whether it could have a better name.
The biggest thing is active mental participation: practice.
Thinking of names seems to be something that some people are extraordinarily bad at, and I'm not sure what the cure is. Back when I was an instructor working in commercial training, I'd often see situations like this:
Me: OK, now you need to create an integer variable to contain the value returned by getchar().
[Trainees start typing, and I wander round the training room. Most are doing fine, but one is sitting like a deer frozen the headlights]
Me: What's the problem?
Him: I can't think of a name for the variable!
So, I'd give them a name for it, but I have a feeling that people with this problem are not going to go far in programming. Or perhaps the problem is they go too far...
This is a subjective question.
I strive to make my code align with the libraries (or, at the least the standard ones) so that the code has an uniformity. I'd suggest: See how the standard library functions are named. Look for patterns. Learn what different naming conventions exist. See which one makes the most sense. E.g: most Java code uses really big identifier names, Camel casing etc. C uses terse/short names. There is then the Hungarian notation -- which was worth the trouble when editors weren't smart enough to provide you with type information. Nowadays, you probably don't need it.
Joel Spolsky wrote a helpful article on Hungarian notation a few years back. His key insight is this:
Let’s try to come up with a coding
convention that will ensure that if
you ever make this mistake, the code
will just look wrong. If wrong code,
at least, looks wrong, then it has a
fighting chance of getting caught by
someone working on that code or
reviewing that code.
He goes on to show how naming variables in a rigourous fashion can improve our code. The point being, that avoiding bugs has a quicker and more obvious ROI than making our code more "maintainable".
Read some good code and imitate it. That's the universal way of learning anything; just replace "read" and "code" with appropriate words.
A good way to find expressive names is starting with a textual description what your piece of software actually does.
Good candidates for function (method) names are verbs, for classes nouns.
If you do design first, one method is textual analysis.
(Even if you are only a team of 1) agree a coding standard with your colleagues so you all use the same conventions for naming. (e.g. It is common to use properties for values that are returned quickly, but a GetXXX or CalculateXXX method for values that will take time to calculate. This convention gives the caller a much better idea about whether they need to cache the results etc). Try to use the same names for equivalent concepts (e.g. Don't mix Array.Count and List.Length as Microsoft did in .net!)
Try to read your code as if somebody else wrote it (i.e. forget everything you know and just read it). Does it make sense? Does it explain everything they need to know to understand it? (Probably not, because we all forget to describe the stuff we "know" or which is "obvious". Go back and clarify the naming and documentation so that someone else can pick up your code file and easily understand it)
Keep names short but descriptive. There is no point writing a whole sentence, but with auto-completion in most IDEs, there is also little point in abbreviating anything unless it's a very standard abbreviation.
Don't waste characters telling somebody that this string is a string (the common interpretation of hungarian notation). Use names that describe what something does, and how it is used. e.g. I use prefixes to indicate the usage (m=member, i=iterator/index, p=pointer, v=volatile, s=static, etc). This is important information when accessing the variable so it's a useful addition to the name. It also allows you to copy a line of code into an email and the receiver can understand exactly what all the variables are meant to do - the difference in usage between a static volatile and a parameter is usually very important.
Describe the contents of a variable or the purpose of a method in its name, avoiding technical terms unless you know that all the readers of your code will know what those terms mean. Use the simplest description you can think of - complex words and technical terms sound intelligent and impressive, but are much more open to misinterpretation (e.g. off the top of my head: Collation or SortOrder, Serialise or Save - though these are well known words in programming so are not very good cases).
Avoid vague and near-meaningless terms like "value", "type". This is especially true of base class properties, because you end up with a "Type" in a derived class and you have no idea what kind if type it is. Use "JoystickType" or "VehicleType" and the meaning is immediately much clearer.
If you use a value with units, tell people what they are in the name (angleDegrees rather than angle). This simple trick will stop your spacecraft smashing into Mars.
For C#, C++, C in Visual Studio, try using AtomineerUtils to add documentation comments to methods, classes etc. This tool derives automatic documentation from your names, so the better your names are, the better the documentation is and the less effort you need to put in the finish the documentation off.
Read "Code Complete" book, more specifically Chapter 11 about Naming. This is the checklist (from here, free registration required):
General Naming Considerations
Does the name fully and accurately describe what the variable represents?
Does the name refer to the real-world problem rather than to the programming-language solution?
Is the name long enough that you don't have to puzzle it out?
Are computed-value qualifiers, if any, at the end of the name?
Does the name use Count or Index instead of Num?
Naming Specific Kinds Of Data
Are loop index names meaningful (something other than i, j, or k if the loop is more than one or two lines long or is nested)?
Have all "temporary" variables been renamed to something more meaningful?
Are boolean variables named so that their meanings when they're True are clear?
Do enumerated-type names include a prefix or suffix that indicates the category-for example, Color_ for Color_Red, Color_Green, Color_Blue, and so on?
Are named constants named for the abstract entities they represent rather than the numbers they refer to?
Naming Conventions
Does the convention distinguish among local, class, and global data?
Does the convention distinguish among type names, named constants, enumerated types, and variables?
Does the convention identify input-only parameters to routines in languages that don't enforce them?
Is the convention as compatible as possible with standard conventions for the language?
Are names formatted for readability?
Short Names
Does the code use long names (unless it's necessary to use short ones)?
Does the code avoid abbreviations that save only one character?
Are all words abbreviated consistently?
Are the names pronounceable?
Are names that could be mispronounced avoided?
Are short names documented in translation tables?
Common Naming Problems: Have You Avoided...
...names that are misleading?
...names with similar meanings?
...names that are different by only one or two characters?
...names that sound similar?
...names that use numerals?
...names intentionally misspelled to make them shorter?
...names that are commonly misspelled in English?
...names that conflict with standard library-routine names or with predefined variable names?
...totally arbitrary names?
...hard-to-read characters?
There's a stored procedure called "cnt_insertContestEntry" in my company's database. I'm new to database naming conventions. What could CNT possibly mean? Contest? i could ask my co-workers but i don't want to look dumb :p.
I had a hard time making this sound nice, and I'm not sure if I succeeded. It is rather strange to ask people who are unlikely to know the answer when you have people much nearer who are quite likely to know the answer.
In general, if you want to know the answer, ask the person most likely to have it. In my opinion, that is never going to make you look dumb!
"cnt" is commonly used as an abbreviation for "count", often in variable names as a part of Hungarian notation. I don't think that's how it's being used here, though. Your guess sounds reasonable. I'd ask.
What's the name of the project/application? We usually prefix our tables, stored procedures etc, with an abbreviated version of the project name.
e.g. on "The TTP Project",
ttp_users
ttp_doSomething
I agree, go ahead and ask your co-workers. But here are some less efficient ideas:
If it's a Stored Procedure, then examine the procedure and see if it gives you clues.
Look for other procedures that start with cnt_. See if they give you any ideas.
My guess is that cnt stands for contest, and that the original author chose the prefix so that all contest-related stored procedures were grouped together alphabetically. Maybe though, there's only one so far.
CNT as a technical term is usually some variant of "Computer Network Technology" [Reference].
Given the sproc has to do with contest entries, I'd guess that cnt is an abbreviation for CoNTest.
It's not the most obvious naming mechanism, but it would serve to suitably keep similar procedures grouped together within SQL Management Studio.
Just ask, I'd only be annoyed with a coworker if they repeatedly asked the same question. First answer is always free.
Don't lose time searching on the internet/analyzing the function. Any company wants efficient employees & in this case asking your colleagues is way more efficient then guessing. The longer you wait to ask, the more awkward it will be when you do ask after thinking about it for ages.. ;)
Looks like it's being used as a schema identifier, means Contest maybe? Horrific naming standard if so!
What's the data type? If it's numeric, maybe it's count - e.g., the database is de-normalized
It's spelled in lowercase, so probably just short for something unimportant. Count, or Content, or Contest, or Cent. It seems to be a namespace of some kind so it's likely that you have other stored procedures with the same prefix. Maybe it's the initials of the person who wrote it. Did you have a Carl-Nicolay Tenenbaum working for you? (Oh, just made that name up, btw.)
Btw, the only dumb questions are the ones you don't dare to ask. So in case of doubt, ask your colleagues. :-)
In one of my projects we have used prefixes to determine the subsystem of project. Because different subsystems were developed by different developers, these prefixes were like shema identifiers.
Exists any naming guideline for naming columns at Sql Server? I searched at MSDN, but dont found anything, just for .Net
There are lots of different conventions out there (and I'm sure other answers may make some specific suggestions) but I think that the most important thing is that you be consistent. If you are going to use a prefix for something, use it everywhere. If you are going to have a foreign key to another table, use the same column name everywhere. If you are going to separate words with underscores, do that everywhere.
In other words, if someone looks at a few tables, they should be able to extrapolate out and guess the names of other tables and columns. It will require less mental processing to remember what things are called.
There are many resources out there, but nothing that I have been able to truly pin down as a SQL Server specific set or anything published by Microsoft.
However, I really like this list.
Also, very important to NOT start out stored procedures with sp_
To be 100% honest though, the first part of my posted link is the most important. It must make sense for your organization, application, and implementation.
As always, google is your friend...
I find the following short list helpful:
Name tables as pluralnouns (or singular, but as a previous response stated, be consistent) for example "Customers", "Orders", "LineItems"
Stored procedures should be named without any prefixes such as "sp_" since SQL Server uses the "sp_" prefix to denote special meaning for system procedures.
Name columns as though as you would name attributes on a class (without using underscores)
Try not to use space characters in naming columns or database entities since you would have to escape all names with "[...]"
Many-to-many tables: for example "CustomerOrders"
Most languages give guidelines to separate different words of a name by underscores (python, C etc.) or by camel-casing (Java). However the problem is when to consider the names as separate. The options are:
1) Do it at every instance when separate words from the English dictionary occur e.g. create_gui(), recv_msg(), createGui(), recvMsg() etc.
2) Use some intuition to decide when to do this and when not to do this e.g. recvmsg() is OK, but its better to have create_gui() .
What is this intuition?
The question looks trivial. But it presents a problem which is common and takes at least 5 seconds for each instance whenever it appears.
I always do your option 1, and as far as I can tell, all modern frameworks do.
One thing that comes to mind that just sticks names together is the standard C library. But its function names are often pretty cryptic anyway.
I'm probably biased as an Objective-C programmer, where things tend to be quite spelled out, but I'd never have a method like recvMsg. It would be receiveMessage (and the first parameter should be of type Message; if it's a string, then it should be receiveString or possibly receiveMessageString depending on context). When you spell things out this way, I think the question tends to go away. You would never say receivemessage.
The only time I abbreviate is when the abbreviation is more clear than the full version. createGUI is good because "GUI" (gooey) is the common way we say it in English. createGraphicalUserInterface is actually more confusing, so should be avoided.
So to the original question, I believe #1 is best, but coupled with an opposition to unclear abbreviations.
One of the most foolish naming choices ever made in Unix was creat(), making a nonsense word to save one keystroke. Code is written once and read many times, so it should be biased towards ease of reading rather than writing.
For me, and this is just me, I prefer to follow whatever is conventional for the language, thus camelCase for Java and C++, underscore for C and SQL.
But whatever you do, be consistent within any source file or project. The reader of your code will thank you; seeing an identifier that is inconsistent with most others makes the reader pause and ask "is something different going on with this identifier? Is there something here I should be noticing?"
Or in other words, follow the Principal of Least Surprise.
Edit: This got downmodded why??
Just follow coding style, such moments usually well described.
For example:
ClassNamesInCamelNotaionWithFirstLetterCapitalized
classMethod()
classMember
CONSTANTS_IN_UPPERCASE_WITH_UNDERSCORE
local_variables_in_lowercase_with_underscores