On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 09:32:02AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >What's "reasonable?" ;) > > > >BTW, "id" is a terrible name for a column. Better call it foo_id. > > Hello, > > I disagree with the idea that "id" is a terrible name for a column. The > only negative to it, is that you will have to be explicit in your > declarations when doing joins and such... ex: > > SELECT * FROM foo > JOIN bar on (foo.id = bar.id) > > Personally I would rather see, and write that then: > > SELECT * FROM foo > JOIN bar on (foo_id = bar_id)
With all due respect, Josh, naming your columns with decipherable names, i.e. *not* having 50 different things called "id" in your db helps enormously with maintenance, especially when the current maintainer has never met the designer, a common situation. Also, many databases have documents that are inadequate, out of date, or both, so decipherable names, along with as much other self-documentation, is a big plus. Cheers, D P.S. As a rule, SELECT * doesn't belong in production code.</nit> -- David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote! ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
