Re: 2NF Controversy

From: Laconic2 <laconic2_at_comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 09:19:01 -0400
Message-ID: <Dv2dnUDFVMxrQyTdRVn-tA@comcast.com>

"Gene Wirchenko" <genew_at_mail.ocis.net> wrote in message news:34nib0lor6a1mt0cifftqng7j8qk2e27bk_at_4ax.com...

> Yes, that is about it. I note a slight problem in that if a
> column did not depend on the key at all, to me, the table would not be
> in 2NF.

If a column did not depend on the key at all, the table would not be in 1NF. The definition of 2NF includes the requirement that the table be in 1NF. That should resolve your slight problem. Received on Sun May 30 2004 - 08:19:01 CDT