Re: Naming conventions for special database objects

First thanks for your input Joe and Carl.

> Obviously you meant "I tend not to put a constraint name on them at
all."<

Unfortunately SQL Server lets you no choice - you get a name for
primary key and foreign key constraints and all others I mentioned.
The following are created by default by the system if you do not
choose one yourself:

Primary Keys: PK_<table name>
Foreign Keys: FK_<referencing table name>_<referenced table name>
Default Constraints: DF_<table name>_<column name>
Check Constraints: CK_<something user defined>
Unique Constraints: UQ_<table name>_<column names> (or some random
ugly string with numbers and underscores)
Indexes: get the same name as column name or as the primary key name

ISO-11179 is obviously a bit general to answer each and every naming
question. And yes, I know "SQL programming style" what was the most
complete compilation of information on this topic I found. Page 11
criticises the PK_, FK_ affixes, but unfortunately gives no
alternative. FK is the role the foreign key plays in that table, but
not in the other, so this is not a good option. On indexes it says
that _idx suffix is acceptable (p. 18), on check constraints it has a
lot of good information.

As I do not like prefixes either, the idea was to see if there are
some better ways to do.

brgds

Philipp Post