Normalization

  • From: Paul Baumgartel <treegarden@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 08:32:22 -0700 (PDT)

I'd love to hear comments on the following Q&A (by a well-known Oracle
"expert").  Do list members think that this view prevails today?  Am I
correct in believing that the importance of normalization, and the
reasons for that importance, are given short shrift by many DB
designers?


 

Q:  What are the basic guidelines one should keep in mind while
designing a database? Is denormalization always good?

A:  I used to teach database design in graduate school, and your
question is excellent! The main purpose of high normalization was the
reduction of disk space, back when it mattered in the 1970s.

Today, I always introduce redundancy into the model whenever it can
eliminate an SQL join, but not always. I make my decision based on two
criteria:

1 ? The size of the redundant item

2 ? The volatility of the item (e.g. how often do I need to duplicate
updates)





=====
Paul Baumgartel
Transcentive, Inc.
www.transcentive.com


                
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
----------------------------------------------------------------
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: