Is it common practice in a star schema to prefix table names as a dimension or fact table? Is it also common practice to have column names prefixed with the table name?
In my normal OLTP databases, I don't do this, but I'm seeing examples of this type of naming in star schemas.
Does it make sense to have a different set of naming standards for data warehouse schemas vs OLTP schemas?
Thanks Dwight
The tablename_column name convention is used to ensure that all fields within a database are unique, although it is somewhat excessive it can be used for when there is a standard / requirement for unique naming (Which some client IT departments demand.)
Product.Name => Product.Product_Name
Part.Name => Part.Part_Name
It removes any ambiguity over where Name would come from.
I prefer not to name tables with a prefex at all (assuming that does not break the local standards of a company), since whilst it might be a table today, it could be re-implemented as a view or partitioned view tomorrow but expose the same schema, and I would then have to accept objects prefixed incorrectly or update everyones reference to the new name / create a synonym.
Having consistency though tends to be the winner, if every DBA / Dev implemented their own version it would be chaos, so I would tend to find the company standards and apply them.