Re: Alternative method to normilize tabels ...

Hi Jan,

>In the description of 3NF they forget to mention that
>that you only have to consider transitive dependencies that end in non-key
>attributes.

I have indeed a specific question about this issue ...

If I apply these normalisation (2NF to 3NF) rules to my tables ... I have attributes that depend on 'a part' of the key AND a 'non key' attribute. I think that I need 'move' these attributes to a new table that get as key the 'part key' AND the non-key attribute of the original table ...

Pff ... trying to express in another form ...

Orig table:

ORIG ( pk X, pk Y, Z, data, ...) attribute 'data' depends on X AND Z

After split ...

ORIG (fpkX, pkY)
NEW (pkX,pkZ, data)

Does it make sence?

> If you take their definition you are actually normalizing to the
>next normal form, i.e., Boyce-Codd normal form. The abbreviations for the
>normal forms is a bit unconventional and UNF is usually defined as some
kind
>nested data structure, but the term is not really fixed yet.

There 'practical' method is indeed appealing (as newbie, I like it) ... but if you compare there approach to all the 'high tech' discussion in this group ... It reases questionmarks .... with other words '... it can't be THAT simple ...'

>Met vriendelijke groet,

Wederzijds ...

Jos ..... Received on Wed Oct 23 2002 - 01:53:35 CEST