Re: Table Normalization - 1 table w/ many columns, or many tables w/ fewer columns?

It is highly unlikely that your architecture is properly normalized. Not impossible but highly unlikely. Generally speaking with surveys it is better to think vertically rather than horizontally. For example rather than this:

SURVEYNO NUMBER, --PK

Q1                    NUMBER,    -- answer to first question
Q2                    NUMBER,    -- answer to second question
Q3                    NUMBER,

do this:

SURVEYNO NUMBER -- PK
QUESTIONNO NUMBER -- PK (the question number, above as Q1, Q2, ...) ANSWERVAL NUMBER -- answer to the question

Daniel Morgan

AEG wrote:

> I have a question an experienced DBA might be able to shed some light on.
> Any words of wisdom would be much appreciated.
> Here's the situation:
>
> I have an Oracle database table with 120 columns. It has a primary key of 4
> columns
> and it is to be used as the main table in a survey application.
>
> Table A
>
> A DBA/developer has suggested it would be more efficient to split the table
> into 3 tables,
> each with the 4 primary key columns, and define 1:1 relations between them
> as follows:
>
> Table A1
> |
> Table A2
> |
> Table A3
>
> Are there a good reasons for doing this? Speed, table sizes/extents, etc.?
> To me, this seems unnecessarily complex as Oracle should be able to handle
> a table with many columns without difficulty. And splitting the tables
> means
> managing more code within forms and reports, etc.
> Am I missing something here?
>
> It seems like the 1 larger table would provide easier access to data when
> writing
> queries and creating forms/reports. Perhaps a little less efficient in
> terms of table
> extents, but more efficient in terms of managing the overall application.
>
> Please excuse me if I have asked the obvious.
>
> AEG
Received on Wed Feb 06 2002 - 10:42:51 CST