Naming Procedures

Aaron Bretrand shares rules that he uses when naming stored procedures:

I’ve talked about this in my live sessions, but this is an extreme case that really happened – a team took over a week to fix a bug in a stored procedure, and the delay was caused solely by poor naming standards. What happened was that the application was calling dbo.Customer_Update, but the team was hunting for the bug in a different procedure, dbo.Update_Customer. While there was no formal convention in place, the real problem was inconsistency – a consultant charged with writing a different application didn’t check for an existing procedure, she just looked for dbo.Update_Customer in the list; when she didn’t find it, she wrote her own. The bug itself wasn’t crucial, but that lost time can never be recovered.

I’ll repeat again that the convention you choose is largely irrelevant, as long as it makes sense to you and your team, and you all agree on it – and abide by it. But I am asked frequently for advice on naming conventions, and for things like tables, I’m not going to get into religious arguments about plural vs. singular, the dreaded tblprefix, or going to great lengths to avoid vowels. But I think I have a pretty sensible standard for stored procedures, and I am always happy to share my biases even though I know not everyone will agree with them. Again, I touched on this in my earlier post, but sometimes these things bear repeating and a little elaboration.

I agree with this:  pick a standard and stick to it.