Re: 2NF Controversy

From: Nomicon <NoSpam_at_hatespam.net>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 00:41:15 -0400
Message-ID: <NoSpam-FF4D7A.00411430052004@corp.supernews.com>

In article <pan.2004.05.29.21.29.25.982643_at_arvin.dk>, Troels Arvin <troels_at_arvin.dk> wrote:

> 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?

The example I saw used addresses. City names was the attribute cited, since it applied to multiple rows.

RK Received on Sat May 29 2004 - 23:41:15 CDT