Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
GoDaddy
Yak Posting Veteran
64 Posts |
 Posted - 2008-11-25 : 18:20:05
|
| We have this table = Account that have an account type field. In the type field, we have this Operator type. I have this Operations tables also. An account is associated to operations. Now I'm debating whether I should called this middle table OperatorOperations .. or AccountOperations. The name AccountOperations tends to think that all account can have operations but it's not the case. Only an account of type Operator can have operations associated to. It's just that naming a table based on data seems a bit strange. But the account type is predefined and comes with the system. So it may be right to name a table based on static data ..... what do you guys suggest? |
|
|
snSQL
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
1837 Posts |
Posted - 2008-11-25 : 23:08:25
|
| Why do you think it's strange to name a table that has accounts in it Account? I'd agree that it would be strange to name a table Smith because there is a person in it named John Smith, but it would make sense to name that table Persons, or Person, or People?As for your relation table OperatorAccounts or AccountOperators seems right depending on the relationship (which isn't very clear from your description). |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Naming of table