Well now, I’m not sure this post aged well. Then again, maybe it did.

The thoughts contained in this post seem…old. I wouldn’t use tbl_, or vw_, or any other prefixes these days. Wayne Snyder was the one, years ago, that helped me to understand that the name of the object should offer the consumer a clear understanding.

We spent a lot of energy discussing prefixes in this post, and in the comments, but I don’t see anyone talking about the most important thing here: the data.

Greg, you know as well as I do, when it comes to working with data for ML purposes, the attribute names are often misleading. For example, an attribute of IsCustomer…is that a customer when the report was run, or was that row updated later, after entered into the CMS?

You know, I should write a new post at this point.

Thanks for stopping by Greg, and for getting some words flowing from my fingers again. It’s been a while.

Cheers!

They clearly had to change the implementation but weren’t game to change the names.

Yep…refactoring…and failing to clean up properly afterwards is a headache for lots of reasons.

In that case you also have to consider that “tblCustomer” might actually be a view, because the guy who made the refactoring was too lazy to update the prefix.

If you’re doing offline review without proper CREATE scripts for the objects you’re reviewing, blindly trusting a prefix, you are risking the accuracy of your review.

It sure is.. “caring”….. oops! I meant “Karen” LOL