|
Posted by Michael Fesser on 09/29/07 19:08
..oO(Sanders Kaufman)
><bob.chatman@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1191048720.987995.258880@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>> 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.
A fully normalized database wouldn't make much sense at all or would
cause way too much overhead. Sometimes even a little redundancy can be
much more practical in the real application.
The question is also how you define "fully normalized". Where do you
draw the line? 3NF? BCNF? While the first 3 normal forms more or less
only reduce redundancy, the more higher normal forms may also destroy
dependencies.
>But that doesn't stop me from evangelizing normalized data!
Where's the point in storing the user's email address in another table
instead of the user or account table itself? It only makes sense if
there can be multiple addresses.
>Non-normalized data is to Databases what spaghetti code is to language.
Over-normalized data is to databases what div-soup is to HTML.
Micha
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|