[Smotko]

It might be just me, but I feel like remembering the foreign key name is more difficult than remembering the columns that you need in the ON clause. Especially since you can usually find the column names by just seeing the data in the table (select * from x) wheres seeing the foreign key names is much harder (show create table x?).

Also, if you use an ORM it will usually generate foreign key names that are almost impossible to remember.

[rtpg]

In a universe where foreign key index names are important we would specify better names.

I think stuff like “documents_by_user” as foreign key names and explicit index usage would improve peoples awareness of how indices get used and would generally be a positive

[exabrial]

I think this is an operator problem. You're using the wrong tool for the job.

TablePlus, SequelAce, the official MySQL client all support cntrl-space autocompletion. I wish we used Postgres, but I imagine the landscape is the same. The big box databases like Oracle, DB2 undoubtedly having this tooling as well.

That being said, here is our fk naming convention: `fk-asset_types->asset_categories` which pretty states what's going on and is easy to remember.

[dolmen]

SQL is not only written in an SQL client. SQL is also written (and read from) embedded/mixed in an other programming language were tooling is not always available.

Having to know the names of foreign keys (in addition to the column names of the 2 tables) is adding more cognitive load. I don't think that is an improvement.

[Latty]

At least when it comes to both JetBrains and VSCode, they can handle one language embedded in another. I'm kind of surprised there are environments that don't handle that these days.

[JoelJacobson]

It would indeed be difficult to remember, but the proposal also suggest changing the default naming convention for foreign keys, to give them the same name as the referenced table.

If using an ORM, I would guess this proposal isn't useful, since then you wouldn't hand-write queries anyway, right? Except when you want to override the queries generated by the ORM? (I'm not an ORM user myself.)

[to11mtm]

Speaking as someone who has used ORMs in the past and contributes to a LINQ Micro ORM...

It might make tooling 'easier', but since backwards compatibility has to be considered the actual value add is questionable IMO.

Most ORMs/MicroORMs will have tooling that sniffs out the DB Schema including foreign keys, and if you are using those bits (i.e. 'not hand written') most will do the right thing today. I suppose you could include some extra syntax for whatever DSL you're providing users....

IDK. Speaking as someone who is very comfortable in SQL, This feels more like syntactic sugar than anything else.

[lolive]

Could you please elaborate on this FK sniffing, and which tools are actually implementing that?

[to11mtm]

Ahhh, I know that Entity Framework would do this at one point, IDK if EF Core does or not.

Linq2Db does it via T4 Template generation, so you can play with it more if you want [0]

[0] - https://github.com/linq2db/linq2db/blob/64a0db9a9ed7787ff755...