Re: Normalization is always good?

Hi Josh,

> normal form, most of the time. And I do a few things (such as
> polymorhic sub-tables) that would give Fabian Pascal fits :-)

Polymorphic sub-tables? =) Do you mean using, for example, one user
table that stores different types of users and has some fields
specific to only some kinds of users and other fields that are shared
by all users?

> However, there is (in my mind) no question as to whether a database
> should be normalized, just how much effort is spent on normalization as
> opposed to other considerations (UI, performance, development time).

I agree. Anyone here familiar with "Extreme Programming"?- they
suggest that you should architect your software only for the
functionality you need NOW. While some aspects of extreme progrmming
have proven themselves true in the face of my skepticism I see it as
my moral obligation as programmer to write programs that are A) as
portable as possible and B) extensible. With that in mind, I like
normalization because it increases the likelihood of scalability being
relatively painless.

> What do you use? I've given up on OODB interfaces, myself, as I did not
> find them helpful, but that's modtly because I was working in MS-land.

I've been working in Java with JDBC... I've actually shot myself in
the foot a bit by not making my application object oriented enough.
In hindsight, and if time permitted more refactoring, I would have
written custom data objects to manage all interactions with the
database so that any management of data happened in one and only one
place and anything that needed to access those objects would do so
through the common interface.

> Yup. http://www.databasedebunking.com/ Dig through the archives.

Couldn't find the server... I wonder if it's still there.

Regards,
Jamu.

--
Jamu Kakar (Developer) Expressus Design Studio, Inc.
jkakar(at)expressus(dot)com 708-1641 Lonsdale Avenue
V: (604) 903-6994 North Vancouver, BC, V7M 2J5