Re: A Normalization Question

After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, neo55592_at_hotmail.com (Neo) belched out:

>> > Having the same person three times in a db is redundant.
>> > Having the same string three times in a db is redundant.
>> > Having the same thing three times in a db is redundant.
>> 
>> You keep treating redundancy and normalization as if
>> they were the same things; they're not.

> With respect to dbs, normalization is the process of eliminating or
> replacing duplicate (redundant) things with a reference to the
> original thing being represented. If one interprets it as treating
> redundancy and normalization as the same thing, one is correct (in
> their own mind).

No, normalization is a _two_-fold process.

1. It is a process of eliminating redundant data. Not of "replacing things with references," but of _eliminating redundant data_.
2. It is also a matter of making sure that data dependancies make sense.

If it was true to say that "normalization" meant "eliminating redundancy," then it would make sense to not bother using the word normalization, as it, itself, is redundant. Far simpler to say "eliminating redundancy," as that more clearly says what was intended.

-- 
output = reverse("moc.enworbbc" "_at_" "enworbbc")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/linuxxian.html
"Utter masochists can inspect the handbook in the main Computer
Laboratory  library and  admire its  collection of  references  to the
primary literature  and for its  price (last seen as  comfortably over
#100)."  -- Arthur Norman