Home -> Usenet -> comp.databases.oracle -> Re: normalisation vs denormalisation

Re: normalisation vs denormalisation

From: George Dau <gedau_at_mim.com.au>
Date: 1996/08/11
Message-ID: <320e3fb0.921266210_at_news.bne.aone.net.au>#1/1 








s9200765_at_westgate.vut.edu.au (Arshad Humayun) wrote:



]



I have a bit more to say on this.  Our academic design types all want 3rd normal
form.  Anyone who has tried to actually implement a system will want some
redundancy - for performance or just for convienence.



It is slow to have to re-calculate a total every time an order is displayed.
You pay a bit for this when you change an order, but not many are changed.



It is slow to have one record for each month, instead of 12 repeating fields in
a record.  OK, repeating fields can be a problem, but really, are the number of
months in a year going to change over the 5 year life of this app?



When it comes to maintenance, we wish we had stuck to normalized structures, and
gotten them to buy better hardware.
Received on Sun Aug 11 1996 - 00:00:00 CEST












Original text of this message