Re: 2NF Controversy
From: Troels Arvin <troels_at_arvin.dk>
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 23:29:26 +0200
Message-ID: <pan.2004.05.29.21.29.25.982643_at_arvin.dk>
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 23:29:26 +0200
Message-ID: <pan.2004.05.29.21.29.25.982643_at_arvin.dk>
On Sat, 29 May 2004 10:14:10 -0400, Nomicon wrote:
> 1) 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.
The above sounds correct.
> 2) The other side suggests that tables violate 2NF when non-key attributes
> apply to multiple rows.
That's a confusing statement, I think.
What would be an example of this?
-- Greetings from Troels Arvin, Copenhagen, DenmarkReceived on Sat May 29 2004 - 23:29:26 CEST