Thomas Mahler wrote: > Hi, > > Eddie Bush wrote: > >> Mahler Thomas wrote: >> >>>> Oh... and why don't we use a 1:1 reference to a separate Quantity >>>> table? >>>> Because no matter how hard I try, I can't convince people that we >>>> shouldn't >>>> let customers use Crystal Reports to report directly from the >>>> back-end. So >>>> in the interest of not confusing customers too much, the >>>> denormalisation is >>>> necessary. >>> >>> Cool argument! >>> I propose to push this concept one step further: >>> why not have a totally denormalized database with only one table? >>> This will allow Excel users to understand your system :-) >> >> Couldn't you provide the same functionality with a view (rendered by >> a stored procedure, perhaps) -- and thereby preserve normalization in >> the actual tables? > > My proposal was a joke! please don't apply it to real systems! > > cheers, > Thomas
I know that! LOL - I'm not *completely* stupid ;-) I was saying though that, since Gareth felt the need to de-normalize things for customers' use, he could, rather than actually denormalizing his entire DB, just build denormalized views. That way, he could retain normalization in his "proper" tables. Regards, Eddie -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
