Re: 2NF Controversy
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 15:56:01 -0700
Message-ID: <bnokb05juht90fqvdfki1uvipifc40o7fb_at_4ax.com>
"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.Received on Mon May 31 2004 - 00:56:01 CEST