I'd be grateful for some advice on the use of schema names. Are they a good idea? Or are they more trouble than they're worth?
Just to be clear, by "schema name" I mean the third element in the four-part naming convention. For example, in AdventureWorks, there is a table:
In this case, HumanResources would be the schema name.
I am about to start work on desigining a new database (with about 200 tables). The data logically falls into five sections, corresponding to the five departments of the company that will be using it.
There are no issues with permissions. All end-users will have access to all parts of the database. All access will be through a desktop application.
I can see the advantage of of splitting the database into five logical sections. It will be nice to be able to see at a glance which area of interest a given object belongs to; and I like the idea of being able to filter the Object Explorer in Management Studio.
On the other hand, it seems like extra work to have to constantly prepend the schema name to every object in the SQL code.
So what's the general opinion? Are there any advantages other than those I mentioned above? And, if so, do they outweigh the extra effort involved?
Thanks in advance.
Mike Lewis (Edinburgh, Scotland)
Visual FoxPro articles, tips, training, consultancy