4 ms·
There is similar comment in the thread, suggesting both tables should always be specified. Not sure what I prefer yet. The idea is the foreign key name is usua
by JoelJacobson 5y ago
There is similar comment in the thread, suggesting both tables should always be specified.
Not sure what I prefer yet. The idea is the foreign key name is usually the same as the referenced table, so should be an infrequent problem.
- zmmmmm 5y ago> The idea is the foreign key name is usually the same as the referenced table I think this is where you are hitting some of your turbulence here because lots of ORMs / schema management tools actually generate completely cryptic fk names (sometimes based on the hash of the columns or similar). Personally I think weighing in legacy baggage like that too highly is a bad thing as it creates enormous inertia.
- JoelJacobson 5y agoThanks for explaining, I have no experience of ORMs, always written my queries manually. This was insightful. Thanks also for the word “inertia”, good one, will add to my vocabulary.