Re: Normalization by Composing, not just Decomposing

From: Eric Kaun <>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:55:14 GMT
Message-ID: <SmDec.7648$>

"Alan" <> wrote in message news:c5esln$suso$
> Haven't you ever heard of a joke (voodoo)?

Sorry, I did understand that part was a joke, but had my sense of humor turned off... I was just implying that it was "closer" to science than to art, due to the principles and definitions that comprise normalization.

> "Putting it back together" was not my concept, it was Dawn's, and I was
> explaining what the correct term is for what she was describing. I made no
> mention of lossy joins, etc.
> The final product (a physical implementation) is not just based on the
> domain being modeled, though, as you point out, it is based on a certain
> reality that must be considered. The implementation of a
> normalized/denormalized schema also considers physical performance
> BTW, the best scientists do more than just follow rules. They show a great
> deal of creativity, intuition, and insight. A bit like voodoo. _You_ might
> be surprised...

Hmmm. That's actually the point I was trying to make - that the process of science differs from its outcome, and that creativity and intuition play a role in launching the processes, etc. etc.

I did a very poor job expressing myself below...

  • erk

> "Eric Kaun" <> wrote in message
> news:Zczec.53528$
> > "Alan" <> wrote in message
> > news:c54a0e$2ohurg$
> > > You are assuming that (good) normalization is a science. It is not. It
> is
> > > part science and part art- that's where experience (as well as ESP to
> read
> > > the user's minds and clairvoiance to predict future needs) comes in to
> > play.
> > > Oh, it is also part voodoo. Sometimes waving a dead chicken in a paper
> bag
> > > over your head produces the results you need.
> >
> > It might not be science, but it's at least a discipline based on logic
> > (specifically functional dependencies). It's always going to require
> > interpretation with respect to the domain being modeled, because we're
> > trying to model part of reality, which is messy, in such a way that we
> (and
> > computers) can extract meaningful data, which requires clarity.
> >
> > That's all a far cry from voodoo, unless you're defining voodoo as
> > everything which is not science. And you might be surprised what real
> > science is like...
> >
> > > By the way, the process of
> > > putting it back together is called denormalization,
> >
> > Putting it back together implies that information was lost during
> > normalization, which isn't the case - in fact, the normalized schema
> doesn't
> > risk data loss (e.g. inconsistency) the way a denormalized schema does.
> >
> > - erk
> >
> >
Received on Mon Apr 12 2004 - 22:55:14 CEST

Original text of this message