Is it considered best practice to handle naming conflicts close to the target in a mapping?

Handling naming conflicts is generally most effective when it is done as early as possible in the data integration process, rather than close to the target in a mapping. Addressing these conflicts upstream allows for better management of data consistency and quality before the data reaches its final destination. By resolving issues at an early stage, it reduces the risk of complications that could arise later during data transformation or loading, thus contributing to a smoother workflow.

When naming conflicts are handled further upstream, there is usually a better understanding of the data structure and naming conventions, which assists in maintaining clarity and organization of data attributes. This also improves the maintainability of the mappings, as changes can be made in a controlled manner without needing to adjust configurations close to the target.

Furthermore, resolving conflicts upstream can also simplify downstream processes, reducing the overall complexity in mapping configurations and enhancing performance by minimizing additional processing workload at the target stage.