Re: 2NF Controversy

"Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote:

>"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.

    I think you are mistaken as 1NF does not deal with dependence on the key but with repeating fields. The added column would not have to be repeating to be a problem.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:

     I have preferences.
     You have biases.
     He/She has prejudices.