Re: Entity vs. Table

"Alan" <alan_at_erols.com> wrote:

>"Gene Wirchenko" <genew_at_mail.ocis.net> wrote in message
>news:01lrc01c8ig9k1ge3ql99msrhre89jaasj_at_4ax.com...
>> "Alan" <alan_at_erols.com> wrote:

>> >"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message
>> >news:40cdb920.19014080_at_news.wanadoo.es...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> So, an implementation of a 3NF logical design migth have redundancy.
>> >
>> >Those are your words, not mine. There should be no redundancy in a
>properly
>> >implemeted 3NF design. You know that, now come on...
>>
>> I sure do not. 3NF is not the highest level of normalisation
>> that can be done.
>>
>> [snip]

>Of course not, but we hadn't gotten that far. We're talking about (as it
>turns out) confusion in the use of terms. It appeared to be a discussion
>about someone thinking that RAID and indexes were a source of redundancy as
>it applies to 3NF. That is the context in which we were dealing. A
>discussion of BCNF, 5NF, etc. would not have helped at that point.

     Take care in oversimplifying. Different people are at different levels. He was right (though probably for the wrong reason) in stating that a 3NF-compliant design could have redundancy. Arguing at different levels is a big problem, in the this newsgroup particularly.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:

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