Re: A Normalization Question

"Neo" <neo55592_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4b45d3ad.0407011053.37b54dec_at_posting.google.com...
> > The real problem here is that Neo has conflated the concepts of
duplication
> > and redundancy.
>
> With respect to dbs, normalization is the process of eliminating or
> replacing duplicate things with a reference to the original thing
> being represented. Within the context of a db, duplicate references
> are not considered redundant because among other reasons:
>
> 1) they are unrelated to the thing being represented.
> 2) they are implementation specific.
> 3) they typically aren't/shouldn't be exposed to the db-user.
> 4) they are automatically maintained by the db.
>
>

Neo,

I get the feeling I'm wasting my time, but... You do not understand redundancy in respect to relational theory. Redundancy (and Normalization!!!) in the RD world is based exclusively on Functional Dependencies. It has nothing at all to do with items 2, 3, or 4 in your list. An RDBMS is "merely" an implementation mechanism for the finished relational schema, which is based on normalization, which is based on functional dependencies. Sorry if I was being redundant. You can report me to the...

Here is a reference for _you_: "Fundamentals of Database Systems", Elmasri & Navathe, Third Ed. pages 476-495. They start with functional dependencies and explain to you how (and when and why) to get all the way to 5NF and all points in between. In only 20 pages! Received on Thu Jul 01 2004 - 21:27:13 CEST