same-named fields in different tables

[Bob7]

I realize that same-named fields (e.g., "NameFirst") in different (related) tables have their own context. Does giving them different names, like "NameFirstEmployee" and "NameFirstVendorContact" have much value to developers (an extra, but not necessary identifier as to which field/table is being referred to)? I'm thinking the overhead of the extra length might not be worth it, but I'm not sure. Thanks.

Bob

[Genx]

Not really no. Unless both fields are in the same table. In the case that they are, yes but watch the length of your field names.

Otherwise, your probably shouldn't worry about it. I.e. if your NameFirst field is in a table called employee, its purpose should be obvious.

~Genx

[BobWeaver]

Not in my opinion. Especially if the table name implies the context. If you have a Vendors table and an Employees table, then Vendors::VendorName and Employees::EmployeeName is somewhat redundant. I try to keep my field names as short as possible as long as they are not ambiguous. You can also use the comment field in the field definitions for better documentation.