Re: design question

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 08:23:49 -0700
Message-ID: <1220887428.774675@bubbleator.drizzle.com>


Chris Seidel wrote:
> William Robertson wrote:
>

>> No offence, but option A is not only an astonishingly terrible idea,
>> but a well known astonishingly terrible idea. It's actually one of the
>> classic astonishingly terrible ideas. For example, see
>> http://oracle-wtf.blogspot.com/2006/02/eav-returns-concrete-elephant-approach.html

>
> Oh nice. I was not the first with this problem ;)
> But this link describes B as an "improvement" of A.
> Thus both A and B are bad?
>
>> What if you want all rows containing both "Hello" and "Foo"? What if
>> you want unique or foreign key constraints?

>
> Ok, these are complex queries.
>
>> It's a fact of life that
>> unconstrained data gathers incorrect values as time goes on.

>
> OK.
>
>> My advice would always be to do the data
>> modelling properly and design an interface such that the model is
>> separate from the client application and presentation logic.

>
> This would mean at least one table for each type of object, doesn't it?

Sounds like you missed the class on normalization. Here it is in short form. http://www.psoug.org/reference/normalization.html and read this too.
http://www.psoug.org/reference/codds_rules.html

Ideally you should be somewhere between at a minimum of 3NF and 5NF may be better from an academic standpoint but not performance so don't go there.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
Oracle Ace Director & Instructor
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org
Received on Mon Sep 08 2008 - 10:23:49 CDT

Original text of this message