2NF Controversy
From: Nomicon <NoSpam_at_hatespam.net>
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 10:14:10 -0400
Message-ID: <NoSpam-A37D44.10141029052004_at_corp.supernews.com>
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 10:14:10 -0400
Message-ID: <NoSpam-A37D44.10141029052004_at_corp.supernews.com>
- One side suggests that in order for a table to violate 2NF, the table must have attributes that are dependent on only part of a compound PK--this implies that 2NF violations only apply to situations in which a table has a compound PK. This requirement has been stated explicitly in several definitions.
- The other side suggests that tables violate 2NF when non-key attributes apply to multiple rows. This definition also applies to tables with simple PK's.
Which defintion is correct? Or are neither correct?
RK Received on Sat May 29 2004 - 16:14:10 CEST