lease respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: over-normalized?
Like one column per table?? I'd like to name this phenomenon as "Fana
; > A valid point. But say, what if an primary key, such as, employee
> > number
> > has to be changed, or reused? Aaaah!!!
> >
> > Forget it. Typed that in just for arguments sake ;-)
> >
> > Thanks
> > Raj
> >
> >
> >
> &g
Title: RE: over-normalized?
Like one column per table?? I'd like to name this phenomenon as "Fanatic Form Of Normalization"
Raj
__
Rajendra Jamadagni MIS, ESPN Inc.
Rajendra dot Jamadagni at ESPN dot com
Any op
> number
> has to be changed, or reused? Aaaah!!!
>
> Forget it. Typed that in just for arguments sake ;-)
>
> Thanks
> Raj
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jared.Still@r
>
> adisys.com To: Multiple recipients
> of list
> ORACLE-L <[E
> Forget it. Typed that in just for arguments sake ;-)
>
> Thanks
> Raj
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jared.Still@r
>
> adisys.com To: Multiple recipients
> of list
> ORACLE-L <[EMAIL
>>From: "Saira Somani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:59:33 -0500
>> Subject: over-normalized?
>>
>>Is there such thing as an over-normalized database design?
>>What defines over-normalization? And what are its consequences? (Other
>>than the obvious degraded database performance
iple recipients of list
ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: cc:
root@fatcity.Subject: Re: over-normalized?
com
January 23,
2003 01:40 PM
cc:
root@fatcity.Subject: Re: over-normalized?
D]
01/23/2003 09:15 AM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: Re: over-normalized?
How many join table operations do you perform, in most of the queries? As
more tables are added to the j
Title: RE: over-normalized?
> From: Saira Somani [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> Is there such thing as an over-normalized database design?
Sure. But usually that would be in the case of doing olap-type reporting in a transactional app.
> What defines over-normalizatio
How many join table operations do you perform, in most of the queries? As
more tables are added to the join, you take a performance hit? Plus, all
the space for the indexes on the additional tables? An update could end up
having to write to multiple tables. So, I guess, you have to walk the tight
11 matches
Mail list logo