The DB analysts at our new parent company are dissing our legacy system
because of the short field and file names. In their world-view, anything
that lacks long, mixed-case column and table names is unworthy of
consideration. I thought I'd take a que from the "Modernization" redbook and
use this holiday slack-time to redefine the major PFs and LFs as SQL tables
and add constraints so our DB can be imported into their analysis tools. The
caveats about multi-member files and record format ids are understood.
SQL examples from textbooks, websites and even the redbook typically show
mixed-case column names like CustomerId and CustomerName so I'm assuming
that this style is in general usage. Yet, when I CREATE TABLE using
RUNSQLSTM or iNav, the resulting column names are converted to upper-case
unless the name is wrapped in dbl-quotes. At that point, though, the
dbl-quotes almost seem to become a part of the column name itself, as it
becomes necessary to include the dbl-quotes in the column name whenever it
is referenced. I can just hear them complaining about dbl-quotes, too!
If the ultimate goal is to have an easy-to-read DB definition, then
CustomerId and CustomerName are certainly easier on the eyes than
CUSTOMERNAME and CUSTOMERNUMBER. I suppose judicious use of the underscore
character would work, but would definitely be a 2nd choice.
Would someone who has been here before be kind enough to tell me how the
rest of the world handles this?
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.