Re: one big tables vs. many smaller

You just defeated your own argument in your statement. If there are many many null values you do not have a normalized schema.

I don't say this to be insulting ... but it seems that you have not studied data normalization. A normalized table should not be a sparse matrix. And your arument with respect to the number of "sub" tables is equally not relevant in a properly normalized schema. It strikes me that things you are considering should never exist.

Daniel Morgan

Steffen Ramlow wrote:

> "damorgan" <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message
> news:3CAC87E3.387D6428_at_exesolutions.com...
> > Much like other things in life ... size has nothing to do with it ... it
> is
> > what you do with it that counts. The definition of a table should be based
> on
> > data normalization tempered by performance. If it belongs in one table ...
> > stick it there. If not ... don't.
>
> if there would only be one or to tables "Sub" then i would out int into the
> big table
> but there are up to 10 "Sub" tables - thus a big tables with many many null
> values
Received on Fri Apr 05 2002 - 15:06:40 CST