|
|
Posted by Michael Fesser on 10/01/07 13:22
..oO(Rik Wasmus)
>On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 11:16:17 +0200, Bruno Barros <ragearc@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I never said there would be performance differences, nor I named it
>> normalization. I named it keep the essential table a MUST for ALL
>> applications using the framework and then, according to the
>> applications' needs, use another table with the data needed. Not all
>> applications need the same amount of information! For example, a
>> customer needs to give away his phone number to be contacted, but a
>> guy registering for a forum doesn't have to! And then, instead having
>> a big fat table with a load of fields that might or might not be used
>> for the applications, you only had what was really necessary!
>
>Who cares there's more information in the database?
I don't want to have 30 fields in a table, if only 5 of them are used in
most cases. In a shop database I surely don't want to have just a single
products table that holds all possible attributes and additional
informations for all the different products. It just keeps the main and
common stuff, while additional informations are stored in separate
tables as necessary (for example track infos for music CDs).
>As long as you just
>use 'SELECT only,the,fields,I,need FROM table' instead of a lazy 'SELECT *
> FROM table', eveything's going to be speedy and allright.
JOINs on properly indexed tables are fast as well.
>On a side note:
>I know forums where a telephone number is needed/required/recommended.
>Usually a more closed, select group forum though.
But there could also be a second phone number (private and business for
example), a fax, some mobile numbers, IM names ... clearly enough to use
another table for all the contact data.
Micha
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|