On Jul 31, 11:52 pm, mray29 wrote:
Tables only have one function, to hold data, so all tables are
essentially equal.

I agree. SQL has but one data structu the table. So why does anyone
need to give it a prefix?

One issue with the Leszynski naming convention (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leszynski_naming_convention) is that there are
(at least on some level) two types of table: a base table and a
virtual table, the latter being a VIEW i.e. a stored Query object
comprising a non-parameterized query that returns a resultset; a
parameterized one or 'action Query' is a PROCEDURE. With the LNC, base
tables get a tbl- whereas both VIEWs and PROCs get qry- i.e. can't
tell which qry- objects are logical tables. Sometimes I want to 'hide'
a base table and expose it only via VIEWs -- say, it has some columns
which should only be exposed to certain user groups rather than PUBLIC
-- and a qry- prefix would give the game away. Sometimes a table
starts out as 'public' and only later goes 'private' at which point I
want to change the name of the base table and create a VIEW using the
base table's former name; under LNC you'd have to rename from tbl- to
qry- in all the SQL queries and statements in all the applications
that use the table (a.k.a. breaking compatibility).

I've been told by a regular in these groups that the tbl- and qry-
prefixes are merely to tell an Access developer whether to look on the
Tables tab or the Queries tab respectively in the Access environment.
If that is the case, I'm not sure why so many Access developers think
it is worth the bother. I rather suspect it is a desire to emulate
their peers i.e. self-perpetuating; I've even heard someone say, "Call
themselves an Access developer? Why, they don't even prefix their
tables with tbl-!!"

Jamie.

--