[dba-SQLServer] Must Relating Fields Have Different Names?

Like you, I believe in naming foreign keys the same as the primary key
in the primary table.  For example, the table Activity has primary key
ActivityID and in the table ActivityPermission you will find ActivityID
as the foreign key that relates back to Activity.ActivityID.)  SQL
Server 2005 certainly has no problem.  

I suspect 'helpfulness'.   

Liz 


-----Original Message-----
From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Waters
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 4:36 PM
To: SQL Server List
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Must Relating Fields Have Different Names?

I just went through my first shot at upsizing an mdb using SSMA.  SSMA
changed all the foreign key names to something different.  In Access,
I've been keeping the Foreign Key field names identical to the field it
is related to for ease of programming.  I often need to be explicit
about which table the field is in, but not a big deal.

What would be a big deal for me is to change all the foreign keys to
unique names!  Then, instead of 'MainID = " & txtMainID, txtMainID could
be equal to a variety of different field names.  

Are different names required in SQL Server?  Or is SSMA just trying to
be 'helpful'?

Thanks!
Dan


_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com
 

 
 
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If
you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the
addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on
this message or any information herein. If you have received this
message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation.