I have several user databases across several servers.
Some of the physical data files are stored as databasename.mdf,
databasename_data.mdf...
Some of the physical log files are stored as databasename.ldf,
databasename_log.ldf...
Does any one has any naming convention suggestion on this?
Currently SQL2K. Planning to move SQL2005 when it is available.
Thanks,
HarryThis is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--020803060805070804090702
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Use whatever convention is logical and meets your needs; the main thing
is to be consistent.
Personally, I tend to stick with the GUI default <dbname>_data.mdf &
<dbname>_log.ldf for everything I can (using default values for things,
if they're sensible & reasonable, tends to avoid the pain of having to
memorise different conventions). For secondary data files I tend to use
<dbname>n_data.ndf where n is just a simple incrementing integer (1, 2,
3...), eg. mydb_Data.mdf, mydb_Log.ldf, mydb1_Data.ndf, mydb2_Data.ndf, etc.
CREATE DATABASE <dbname>, with no extra parameters, will create the
database with <dbname>.mdf & <dbname>_log.ldf but I've always thought
that to be inconsistent (with "_log" but not "_data") so I've always
gone with the recommendation of the GUI (with the _data & _log postfixes).
--
*mike hodgson*
blog: http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com
HarrySmith wrote:
>I have several user databases across several servers.
>Some of the physical data files are stored as databasename.mdf,
>databasename_data.mdf...
>Some of the physical log files are stored as databasename.ldf,
>databasename_log.ldf...
>Does any one has any naming convention suggestion on this?
>Currently SQL2K. Planning to move SQL2005 when it is available.
>Thanks,
>Harry
>
>
--020803060805070804090702
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<tt>Use whatever convention is logical and meets your needs; the main
thing is to be consistent.<br>
<br>
Personally, I tend to stick with the GUI default
<dbname>_data.mdf & <dbname>_log.ldf for everything I
can (using default values for things, if they're sensible &
reasonable, tends to avoid the pain of having to memorise different
conventions). For secondary data files I tend to use
<dbname>n_data.ndf where n is just a simple incrementing integer
(1, 2, 3...), eg. mydb_Data.mdf, mydb_Log.ldf, mydb1_Data.ndf,
mydb2_Data.ndf, etc.<br>
<br>
CREATE DATABASE <dbname>, with no extra parameters, will create
the database with <dbname>.mdf & <dbname>_log.ldf but
I've always thought that to be inconsistent (with "_log" but not
"_data") so I've always gone with the recommendation of the GUI (with
the _data & _log postfixes).<br>
</tt>
<div class="moz-signature">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<p><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">--<br>
</font></span> <b><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">mike
hodgson</font></span></b><span lang="en-au"><br>
<font face="Tahoma" size="2">blog:</font><font face="Tahoma" size="2"> <a
href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a></font></span>">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com</a></font></span>
</p>
</div>
<br>
<br>
HarrySmith wrote:
<blockquote cite="midONj5bFAtFHA.3604@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I have several user databases across several servers.
Some of the physical data files are stored as databasename.mdf,
databasename_data.mdf...
Some of the physical log files are stored as databasename.ldf,
databasename_log.ldf...
Does any one has any naming convention suggestion on this?
Currently SQL2K. Planning to move SQL2005 when it is available.
Thanks,
Harry
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--020803060805070804090702--
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment