I doubt this will have any sway on the contributors to this thread,
but I ran across a db normalization "rule of thumb" yesterday in a
tutorial for another language: "Normalize until it hurts; De-normalize
until it works."
I lean towards finding a middle ground, so this makes sense to me.
--David
Richard Heyes wrote:
I do not agree that creating a database which is normalised to3NF is a
waste of time.
It isn't always, but it is sometimes. When time is a (significant)
factor, getting something up and running (which has acceptable
performance) may be more impotant than creating a techni
"Richard Heyes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Then surely "designed well" would include a normalised database?
>
> Not necessarily. You could for example have a database that accommodates
> future needs without being completely normalised.
That depends on your d
Then surely "designed well" would include a normalised database?
Not necessarily. You could for example have a database that accommodates
future needs without being completely normalised.
--
Richard Heyes
++
| Access SSH with a Windows mapped drive |
|
"Richard Heyes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Your experience in the real world must be very limited
>
> Clearly.
>
> > as it is often the
>> case where a customer starts off with a "simple" requirement then keeps
>> expanding it as time goes by as he dreams up m
Your experience in the real world must be very limited
Clearly.
> as it is often the
case where a customer starts off with a "simple" requirement then keeps
expanding it as time goes by as he dreams up more things that the system
should do for him. If at day #1 you say "these reqirements are
"Richard Heyes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> You obviously do not understand what "technically perfect" means when it
>> comes to data normalisation.
>
> Obviously.
>
>> That's why solutions which are thrown together are often incapable of
>> being expanded to
On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 13:51 +0100, Tony Marston wrote:
> "Richard Heyes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> I do not agree that creating a database which is normalised to3NF is a
> >> waste of time.
> >
> > It isn't always, but it is sometimes. When time is a (sig
On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 11:10 +0100, Richard Heyes wrote:
> Tony Marston wrote:
> > "Richard Heyes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> The database must be properly normalised otherwise it
> >>> will be difficult to get at the data you need in an efficient manner.
On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 10:31 +0100, Tony Marston wrote:
> "Richard Heyes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > The database must be properly normalised otherwise it
> >> will be difficult to get at the data you need in an efficient manner.
> >
> > Not true. If your n
You obviously do not understand what "technically perfect" means when it
comes to data normalisation.
Obviously.
That's why solutions which are thrown together are often incapable of being
expanded to include new requirements.
I've never adovocated "throwing together" a solution. Merely that
"Jason Pruim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On May 5, 2008, at 6:21 AM, Tony Marston wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyone who doesn't know how to reach 3NF shouldn't be designing
>> databases.
>
> Just out of curiosity... How many Records do you need to have in a
> data
"Richard Heyes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> I do not agree that creating a database which is normalised to3NF is a
>> waste of time.
>
> It isn't always, but it is sometimes. When time is a (significant) factor,
> getting something up and running (which has ac
Anyone who doesn't know how to reach 3NF shouldn't be designing
databases.
Just out of curiosity... How many Records do you need to have in a
database before you'll start seeing a performance boost from doing that?
There's no hard and fast rule. When it becomes a chore to maintain I
suppose
On May 5, 2008, at 6:21 AM, Tony Marston wrote:
Anyone who doesn't know how to reach 3NF shouldn't be designing
databases.
Just out of curiosity... How many Records do you need to have in a
database before you'll start seeing a performance boost from doing
that? I have written a few
I do not agree that creating a database which is normalised to3NF is a waste
of time.
It isn't always, but it is sometimes. When time is a (significant)
factor, getting something up and running (which has acceptable
performance) may be more impotant than creating a technically perfect
solutio
"Richard Heyes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Tony Marston wrote:
>> "Richard Heyes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The database must be properly normalised otherwise it
will be difficult to get at the data you need in an
Tony Marston wrote:
"Richard Heyes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The database must be properly normalised otherwise it
will be difficult to get at the data you need in an efficient manner.
Not true. If your needs are simple for example, normalisation can increase
"Richard Heyes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > The database must be properly normalised otherwise it
>> will be difficult to get at the data you need in an efficient manner.
>
> Not true. If your needs are simple for example, normalisation can increase
> the compl
> The database must be properly normalised otherwise it
will be difficult to get at the data you need in an efficient manner.
Not true. If your needs are simple for example, normalisation can
increase the complexity of a schema, hence increasing development time
needed. Sometimes for example
20 matches
Mail list logo
