Mysql Naming Convention

Michael Halcrow mike at
Wed Apr 19 07:28:59 MDT 2006

On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 07:49:27PM -0700, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:38:59 -0600, "C. Ed Felt" <ed at> said:
> >    In my upper level Computer Science Database Theory course we
> >    used two text books: big fat, ugly ones.  Both used singular
> >    names for table names.  It appears that the reasoning was
> >    because the table name itself really represents each singular
> >    "entity" and there are just multiple rows of them.
> Wow, that is really bizarre logic.
> Would you name an array "employee" because it is a single reference? 
> No;
> that would be confusing: containers should be pluralized.
> Similarly, a table contains multiple rows of a certain type.

Not necessarily. A table could ever only be intended to contain a
single row. And, in any case, it is debatable whether you can validly
think of a single field in a table as a ``container.'' But to continue
the pedantics...

Perhaps one may think of table definitions as analogous to struct
definitions for struct types that are later used in an array or linked
list declaration. Would you pluralize the individual struct members in
that case, or only pluralize the actual struct array alias?

"If you find official statements that contradict mine, I'm wrong."   
 - Disclaimer in a post on Slashdot by an IBM'er
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : 

More information about the PLUG mailing list