Re: Normalization is always good?

Jamu,

> I have been working with SQL databases for about a year in a half and
> in that time I've come to the conclusion that it is not always
> preferable to normalize to a high level (like 3rd level). In some
> cases, depending on the application, I've found that normalizing to a
> ridiculous degree has shot me in the foot in terms of the
> responsibility of my code to manage what happens in the database.

There I'd agree with you ... there is the question of *how rigorous* you
want your normalization to be. I tend to hover around the simplest
normal form, most of the time. And I do a few things (such as
polymorhic sub-tables) that would give Fabian Pascal fits :-)

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've found referential integrity makes normalization a less expensive
> notion as it absolves you of the task of keeping data current in all
> your tables. I've also found that working in an object oriented
> language makes normalization less expensive.

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.

> What are the views of the people on this list re: Normalization
> Guidelines? Anybody know of any good web sites that talk about this
> in depth?

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

-Josh Berkus

--
______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________
Josh Berkus
Complete information technology josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com
and data management solutions (415) 565-7293
for law firms, small businesses fax 621-2533
and non-profit organizations. San Francisco