Primary & Foreign Key Naming Consensus?

[jgoodman00]

I am currently experiencing the problem 'Insufficient key column information for updating or refreshing' when I try & modify data via ADO. This is a known problem with Microsoft (

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;246905)

MDAC, & they state the reason is 'if the recordset, based on a SHAPE command, joins two tables where the primary key of one table has the same name as a column name of the other table'. I currently name primary & foreign key fields with the same name (i.e. BRSID). If I change the foreign key of this field to BRSIDL the error is resolved.

However, what is the consensus as to the naming of primary & foreign keys? James Goodman MCP

http://www.james-goodman.co.uk

 

[r937]

i doubt you'll get a consensus

if naming them the same causes problems, people will do otherwise

naming them the same is useful for natural joins (sorry, no idea if sql server supports natural joins)

me personally, i like the idea of naming the primary key ID and then the foreign keys have the referenced table name, or portion thereof, as part of the name

e.g. employee table as "id" as primary key, timesheet table has "emplid" as foreign key, and then joins will read as follows:

... on employee.id = timesheet.emplid


rudy

 

[fluteplr]

For what its worth I agree with Rudy. It makes reading the code easier.