Re: 2NF Controversy

From: Troels Arvin <>
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 23:29:26 +0200
Message-ID: <>

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, Denmark
Received on Sat May 29 2004 - 23:29:26 CEST

Original text of this message