Re: Which normal form is this violating?

Can you please define common sense.
I don't agree with you. Having a table with just a PK is as far as I am concerned
nonsense. In practice you have indexes for those things. Overnormalizing usually creates unworkable, bad performing database designs.

dario wrote:

> It does not violate any normal form, it is perfectly normalized, but it
> violates common sense.
>
> "Roger Redford" <dba_222_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:a8c29269.0204242031.9d9964f_at_posting.google.com...
> > Hello DB Design experts,
> >
> > I'm having the usual disputes about database design issues.
> >
> > The information that my coworkers have is say, x and y.
> > It has a one to one relationship. Therefore, it
> > goes into one and the same table.
> >
> > Table_A
> > Fieldx (pk)
> > Fieldy
> >
> >
> > However, they are arguing that it goes into another table.
> >
> > Table_A
> > Fieldx (pk)
> >
> > Table_B
> > Fieldx (pk)
> > Fieldy (not null)
> >
> > (Actually, thye have "designed" a number of strange tables,
> > and then put views on top of them, to come back to the same one to
> > one relationship. Very strange and complex. )
> >
> > What normal form does this violate? It isn't 1st,
> > 2nd, or 3rd. Boyce-Codd maybe? The crazy thing about
> > the design texts, is that they rarely cover mistakes
> > in design. This is a common one.
> >
> > Thanks

--
Anton Versteeg
DB2 Specialist
IBM Netherlands