|
|
Posted by Sanders Kaufman on 09/29/07 18:26
<bob.chatman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191048720.987995.258880@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> This is actually very interesting. I have been studying user systems a
> lot over the last year or so and have never seen minimal tables in any
> of the active/popular applications.
> of the active/popular applications. Even the PHPBB3 is a huge offender
> to your suggestion with their whopping 72 fields in their user table.
> I have never really had any issues with dealing with tables with a
> large number of entries, assuming they arent replicated or whatever.
> In fact, i have only ever read about/seen/been forced to use linked
> tables when data is replicated.
>
> Can you provide any reasoning for your minimal approach?
It's a DB theory purist thing - with very few real-world applications.
In fact - I don't think I've *ever* encountered a fully normalized database
in the real world.
But that doesn't stop me from evangelizing normalized data!
Non-normalized data is to Databases what spaghetti code is to language.
It may work fine for the folks who threw the app together, but they're the
ONLY ones who will enjoy it.
The benefits of fully normalized data are most readily apparent
- in massive databases
- or after years of use,
- or in systems that later try to integrate with other systems.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|