RE: normalization

Hi Chris,

You are right.
If it is a logical data model, then fight for 3NF, if not BCNF. But in physical database designs, denormalization should be normative if it will improve application efficiency and if it will not hinder development and maintenance. Just my opinion, of course.

@ Regards,
@ Steve Adams
@ http://www.ixora.com.au/ - For DBAs
@ http://www.christianity.net.au/ - For all

-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Chris Stephens Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2005 5:25 AM 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


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