[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word
- From: Ralph Hilken <email@example.com>
- To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:49:47 -0400
Hope this is in text, please excuse me if it is still in HTML.
Nicolas LEHUEN wrote on 8/29/2001 3:44 AM EDT:
>If you want to stick with the table/column metaphor, I don't know of any
>relational data processing that care about a column without taking care of
>the table it belongs to.
While watching this fascinating thread, IMHO a point should be brought out
on the database side of things.
FWIW, when I use ERwin (an expensive database modeling tool favored by
Fortune 500 firms) out of the box to design tables, it will prompt me
whenever I add a column to a table that has the exact same column name
already used in another table. I thought this was a curiosity, as I know
what table the column belongs to, so I ignored that message and kept on
Now I realize that maybe there are folks out there that _do care_ that
columns in database tables must maintain unique names. In that case having
a unique column name would be sufficient enough for identifying things
uniquely in such a system across tables. BTW, ERwin would be more than
happy to generate a unique column name if one is short on imagination at the
There are also many folks who enjoy prepending a "T_" in front of database
table names, in case you were wondering that the name you just encountered
is a table name. I consider myself happy that I never ran into a database
that prepended all of its column names with a "C_". I have seen data t**ing
make their way into column names.
The problem of naming seems to transcend XML applications.