Re: Complicated query
From: Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex_at_attglobal.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:55:20 -0500
Message-ID: <m6cpa6$8fs$1_at_dont-email.me>
>
> How is this non-normalized? You would label each of the answer fields
> with a unique name that illustrates the question to which it is an
> answer. You would then eliminate the question table entirely, unless
> you want to keep it with both the expanded question and the name of the
> field in the instance table for which it corresponds. In that table,
> the name would then be the foreign key. Since this only is to be used
> is designing the html user interface, it is really not needed as you
> could simply add the text explicitly. Thus you are down to only one
> table that is needed -- the instance table -- with n unique fields.
>
> So, pray tell, how is that non-normalized? Where is the redundancy? To
> what other tables need something here be propagated (none!).
>
> No, sir, it is not non-normalized. The "normalization" that exists now
> is an unnecessary complication.
>
>
> He was giving a short-hand. He *obviously* meant
>
> ID Instance-item-1 Instance-Item-2 (etc.) Question Achoice Bchoice
> Cchoice Dchoice (etc.)
>
> Apparently that was beyond your grasp.
>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:55:20 -0500
Message-ID: <m6cpa6$8fs$1_at_dont-email.me>
On 12/11/2014 12:33 PM, Shelly wrote:
> On 12/9/2014 7:15 PM, Denis McMahon wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 22:00:57 -0500, Shelly wrote: >> >>> On 12/7/2014 12:05 PM, richard wrote: >> >>>> I know this will piss off normalized Jerry Stuckle, but I'd just as >>>> soon use one table. >>>> Columns would be ID Question Achoice Bchoice Cchoice Dchoice Correct >>>> >>>> Now all you need to do is retrieve the row for each ID as needed. >> >>> Of course, and if *I* had designed the table structures, that is what I >>> would have done as well. >> >> You are kidding us, right? >> >> Are you seriously working with Oracle products and preaching non >> normalised database design?
>
> How is this non-normalized? You would label each of the answer fields
> with a unique name that illustrates the question to which it is an
> answer. You would then eliminate the question table entirely, unless
> you want to keep it with both the expanded question and the name of the
> field in the instance table for which it corresponds. In that table,
> the name would then be the foreign key. Since this only is to be used
> is designing the html user interface, it is really not needed as you
> could simply add the text explicitly. Thus you are down to only one
> table that is needed -- the instance table -- with n unique fields.
>
> So, pray tell, how is that non-normalized? Where is the redundancy? To
> what other tables need something here be propagated (none!).
>
> No, sir, it is not non-normalized. The "normalization" that exists now
> is an unnecessary complication.
>
>> >> Also you seem to have lost the instance information somewhere along the >> way. Hope that wasn't important.
>
> He was giving a short-hand. He *obviously* meant
>
> ID Instance-item-1 Instance-Item-2 (etc.) Question Achoice Bchoice
> Cchoice Dchoice (etc.)
>
> Apparently that was beyond your grasp.
>
Shelly,
It is a violation of First Normal form:
"A relation is in first normal form if the domain of each attribute contains only atomic values, and the value of each attribute contains only a single value from that domain."
Having multiple answers in one row violates the "single value from that
domain" (answers).
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex_at_attglobal.net
==================
Received on Thu Dec 11 2014 - 19:55:20 CET