Please pardon me if I was unclear. What I meant to write is that the risk of data corruption isn't bigger with long field names compared to using short field names.

>That's nonsense. You can have corruption with or without a DBC. I've never seen an increase in corruption by using a DBC nor have I ever seen anyone say it's more likely to be corrupted.
>
>Corruption is primarily a result of poor application architecture, bad user habits, and/or poor infrastructure.
>
>>Right, no data corruption will happen. I'm more of the "why take an unnecessary risk" type of guy.