In the database world, there are some things that are universally agreed upon. Increased RAM is largely beneficial to DMBS systems. Spreading out data and log files on RAID improves performance. Naming conventions are not one of those things. This is a surprisingly polarizing topic, with the proponents of various methodologies firmly entrenched in their positions. And very vocal and passionate in their defense of the same. This article will delve into some of the specific conventions and the arguments on both sides, while attempting to present a reasonable conclusion for each point.
What’s In A Name? The Database Edition Database models require that objects be named. While several facets of naming an object deserve consideration, in this article we’ll focus on the most important one: defining a convention and sticking to it. Why Use Naming Conventions? Look at the database model below. I went a bit overboard and removed as many traces of a naming convention as I could. This proves my first point: a naming convention is an important part of a well-built data model.
Over the years, working as a data modeler and database architect, I have noticed that there are a couple rules that should be followed during data modeling and development. Here I describe some tips in the hope that they might help you. I have listed the tips in the order that they occur during the project lifecycle rather than listing them by importance or by how common they are.
Why Talk About Errors? Model Setup 1 – Using Invalid Names 2 – Insufficient Column Width 3 – Not Indexing Properly 4 – Not Considering Possible Volume or Traffic 5 – Ignoring Time Zones 6 – Missing Audit Trail 7 – Ignoring Collation Why Talk About Errors? The art of designing a good database is like swimming. It is relatively easy to start and difficult to master.