Re: Database Design questions

  • From: Jared.Still@xxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:17:45 -0700

Peter, how generous of you.

This table can't even boast of 1NF.

Jared





Peter Robson <pgro@xxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
06/18/2004 07:12 AM
Please respond to
oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


To
Pallav Kalva <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
Re: Database Design questions






Hi Pallav,

You describe a problem area.

As a general rule, if any single relation (eg 'table') has as many as
130 attributes, I am suspicious that the relation is not in Third
Normal Form (TNF). This is not to suggest any weakness on the part of
Oracle in dealing with wide tables, of course.

My suspicious were further confirmed when you suggested that all the
columns 'are mostly dependent or related to the primary key'. This
does suggest your table is not in TNF.

May I encourage you to revisit your total list of attributes
(irrespective of the relations / tables they are currently assigned
to), and apply some formal normalisation to them? Not to do so will
unquestionably store up problems for you in the future.

Of course, once you have normalised to TNF, you may make a judgement
in terms of selective de-normalisation, but that should only come after
normalisation has been achieved.

hope that helps...

peter
edinburgh



Other related posts: