Here’s a quick question for you. Do you abbreviate the names of schemas in SQL Server? I ask because I see that a lot of people do and quite frankly I don’t really see a justification for it. Let me show you what I mean. What is more meaningful? This:
Personally speaking, I would rather deal with
- [product], [reconciliation], [report], [sales]
- [prd], [rec], [rpt], [sls]
because they’re easier to understand (and that’s vital when introducing newcomers to a project] yet I’m clearly in a minority because most places I go people seem to prefer to use abbreviated three letter schema names like I show in the first screenshot above.
I asked the same question on Twitter and here are some of the responses that I got:
Adam Machanic raise a very good point in his tweet (above) about intellisense – it negates the only justification I can think for abbreviated schema names, that being that they are quicker to type.
The consensus from those tweets seems to be that abbreviating schema names isn’t commonly practised but that doesn’t jive with what I see in my work day-in day-out. So, dear reader, how about you? Do you use abbreviated schema names or not? Note that there is no right or wrong answer here, I’m just interested to know.
P.S. You do USE schemas, right? ;)