Yeah, that can include anything you create in the database - entities, tables, relationships, and so on. But what do you mean by standardization?
Just that we need to be internally consistent in how we name objects - it doesn't matter what name we pick, just that it always matches.
We need to be consistent with the department file naming policies at all times.
We need to follow a systematic approach that creates useful object names that do not end up creating consistency and usability problems.
Well, there are so many different object types, surely you just mean the common ones - tables, relationships, databases, and so on?
That is correct. We would be wasting time on the platform-specific objects.
No, that's not true. All of the objects need to have a consistent naming style.
Well, how about we add a prefix to each database's objects so that we know which one it applies to?
This is a good way of easily identifying where objects belong. Great idea!
This could cause problems in consistency and in data migration. It is best to avoid this strategy.
This could work for something like production and testing environments, but we shouldn't do it for each.
Do you plan to run multiple DBMS's simultaneously?
No, we would like to consolidate all of our DBMS operations into a single package.
Yes, as new technology comes out we will be early adopters.
Yes, we intend to support multiple legacy DBMS's in addition to the new one.
What level of architecture would you like to implement for your organization?
Enterprise (very large number of users; highly scalable)
Departmental (several small to medium-sized workgroups)
Personal (individual users)
Mobile (remote users)
Do you want to enable clustering?
Yes, enable "shared-nothing" clustering.
Yes, enable "shared-disk" clustering.
No, we do not require clustering....