Re: A Normalization Question

• Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"Alan" <alan_at_erols.com> wrote in message news:2l2btjF813i3U1_at_uni-berlin.de...

> "Neo" <neo55592_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4b45d3ad.0407061849.580874d6_at_posting.google.com...

> > > > A better reference is C.J. Date's "An Intro to Database Systems"...

> > > How does that make it better?
> > > Anyways how would you know it is better since you never read Navathe?

> > While I have not read all 873 pages of Elmasri/Navathe's "Fund of Db
> > Sys" 2nd Ed that sits several books under my C.J. Date's "Intro to Db
> > Sys" 6th Ed, I have read enough of it to know that compared to that of
> > Date's p288-9, their fundamental explanation of normalization on p407
> > is limited: "Normalization of data can be looked on as a process
> > during which unsatisfactory relation shemas are decomposed by breaking
> > up their attributes into smaller relations schemas that possess
> > desirable properties". C.J. Date's is better because his fundamental
> > explanation comes closer to the general form of normalization that can
> > be applied to data in any model, even those that don't have any
> > relations.

> That's on old version, maybe 12 years old. They are up to 4th Ed. now.

Only 12 years ? This means 1992 - still new compared to the relational model.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

• Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=