Robert Walker wrote: > > I definitely agree that there are cases where breaking normalization for > other gains is desirable. I just don't completely agree that this is one > of those cases. In this case following out to 3NF is beneficial. It > would provide for a more flexible and more elegant design. It will also > simplify the design for asking more "interesting" questions like, "Give > me a list of all names that have Dale as a middle name." > > Maybe questions like that aren't a concern now, but breaking normal > forms in this case will make questions like that more difficult (and > complex) to ask later if the need arises. Why "build in" known > limitations when there is no known reasons for do so? > > I understand the desire for simple design, but not at the cost of good > design. Not when there's no clear reason to avoid the better design.
I tend to normalise as often as possible, and I do agree with you Robert. But http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?YouArentGonnaNeedIt also raises a very good point. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
