Database design/normal form conundrum
From: Mark Carter <cartermark46_at_ukmail.com>
Date: 26 Mar 2004 02:39:53 -0800
Message-ID: <d3c9c04.0403260239.20a57d3f_at_posting.google.com>
Normally, in one-to-many relationships, where you don't know how many is many, it is necessary to have two tables linked to each other. But supposing there were a fixed number of relationships. How would that change your view over using two linked tables over one big wide one?
Date: 26 Mar 2004 02:39:53 -0800
Message-ID: <d3c9c04.0403260239.20a57d3f_at_posting.google.com>
Normally, in one-to-many relationships, where you don't know how many is many, it is necessary to have two tables linked to each other. But supposing there were a fixed number of relationships. How would that change your view over using two linked tables over one big wide one?
Here's the setup:
A database exists whereby each record contains a data value. The data value has exactly five tests applied to it. A test consists of a pass/fail result, a user comment about the failure, and a user decision as to whether or not to ignore the error.
So, that's five tests, consisting of 3 fields apiece, making 15 fields in all; and there is possibility that a couple more tests may need to be added.
So which is better:
1. just have one table with lots of fields
2. two tables with much fewer fields, but with all the complications