Hi, the doc says for implicit Many-to-many relations the name of col must be named as

A

and

B

. Is there a way to name it meaningful? Or I have to construct it explicitly?

Think it has to be explicitly defined

Got the same setup by defining this:

model PostToComment {
  post   Post @relation(fields: [postId], references: [id])
  postId Int    @map("post_id")

  comment   Comment @relation(fields: [commentId], references: [id])
  commentId Int             @map("comment_id")

  @@unique([postId, commentId])
  @@index([commentId])
  @@map("_PostToComment")
}

@Leo Li 👋 The above would be an explicit M-N relation. For implicit relations, you need to adhere to the conventions of

A

and

B

as the table names.

Thanks @Ryan, our team found A/B is too cryptic when people looking at the raw table directly. Would be curious to know if I setup explicitly like the above, would I miss any implicit convenience other than manually define it like the above?

There’s one convenience that you would miss i.e. if you’re adding relations, you would need to go an extra level to connect/create records as the relation table will be included in b/w due the explicit nature.

Got it, cool!