RE: normalization

I hope this person has a good reason for doing something that is "not recommended".

This may help:

http://www.alphabetcitydataworks.com/FundamentalsOfRelationalDatabaseDes ign.doc

Scroll down to Third Normal Form.

-----Original Message-----

From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Chris Stephens Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 1:25 PM To: Oracle-L Freelists
Subject: normalization

There is a discussion going on at work concerning calculated fields.

I am claiming that any calculated field in a table is a violation of at least 3NF if not 2NF. I can find all sorts of references on the web that justify my position but nothing that directly says this violates normalization rules.

The person who i disagree with is claiming that 'technically', calculated fields do not violate 3NF. They are just not recommended. I am unable to find anything on the web coinciding with this argument.

Anyone know of a site with a direct statement that calcualted fields violate 2NF/3NF?

thanks,
chris
--

http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

**DISCLAIMER
This e-mail message and any files transmitted with it are intended for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail message. The contents do not represent the opinion of D&E except to the extent that it relates to their official business.

--

http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l Received on Tue Nov 01 2005 - 12:39:20 CST