Re: Normalization
- From: Jonathan Gennick <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Paul Baumgartel <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 12:37:00 -0400
Thursday, July 29, 2004, 11:32:22 AM, Paul Baumgartel (treegarden@xxxxxxxxx)
wrote:
PB> Today, I always introduce redundancy into the model whenever it can
PB> eliminate an SQL join, but not always.
"whenever" but "not always" is kind of a contradiction in
itself.
I recall one performance problem, involving a query to
lookup records, that I solved by using a trigger to store a
copy of a column into another table, thus eliminating the
one join that was in a query. In that one case though, you
could easily have argued that the underlying design was
flawed, and that the two tables, which were one-to-one,
should have been one table. Or at least, the frequently
queried columns should all have been together in the same
table.
Please don't misconstrue me here. I'm not a fan of
denormalization. In one instance though, many years ago, I
did use the technique to make some users very, very happy.
Best regards,
Jonathan Gennick --- Brighten the corner where you are
http://Gennick.com * 906.387.1698 * mailto:jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxx
Join the Oracle-article list and receive one
article on Oracle technologies per month by
email. To join, visit http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/oracle-article,
or send email to Oracle-article-request@xxxxxxxxxxx and
include the word "subscribe" in either the subject or body.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
