As much as I like a nice, normalized database, there have been times where
un-normalizing a database is the most effective solution.

Of course, I can't think of a good example right now.

However, I do insist that the database MUST be normalized to at least 3rd
normal form at some point in the development process.

The discipline of normalizing the data is the important part.  You need to
split the data into its optimum records before you can un-normalize it.

--Paul E Musselman
PaulMmn@ix.netcom.com



>Well, of course, Alan.  If he has to denormalize it to do it, there is no
>good reason to do it.  Database files should *always* be normalized.
>
>Scott didn't mention anything about normalization though.  Which is why
>I asked the question, better for what?
>
>Regards,
>
>Jim Langston
>
>Alan Campin wrote:
>
>> Sorry but I disagree strongly.
>>
>> Your tables should be normalized. If all the attributes(fields) in the table
>> is based on the key and nothing but the key, then you know what size your
>> record is. The data base normalization tells you what goes in each table.
>
>[SNIP]


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2020 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].