RE: normalization
- From: "Steve Adams" <steve.adams@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <cstephens16@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Oracle-L Freelists'" <Oracle-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 10:04:19 +1100
Hi Chris,
You are right.
If it is a logical data model, then fight for 3NF, if not BCNF.
But in physical database designs, denormalization should be normative
if it will improve application efficiency and
if it will not hinder development and maintenance.
Just my opinion, of course.
@ Regards,
@ Steve Adams
@ http://www.ixora.com.au/ - For DBAs
@ http://www.christianity.net.au/ - For all
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Chris Stephens
Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2005 5:25 AM
To: Oracle-L Freelists
Subject: normalization
There is a discussion going on at work concerning calculated fields.
I am claiming that any calculated field in a table is a violation of
at least 3NF if not 2NF. I can find all sorts of references on the
web that justify my position but nothing that directly says this
violates normalization rules.
The person who i disagree with is claiming that 'technically',
calculated fields do not violate 3NF. They are just not recommended.
I am unable to find anything on the web coinciding with this argument.
Anyone know of a site with a direct statement that calcualted fields
violate 2NF/3NF?
thanks,
chris
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
