Re: A Normalization Question

> > Multiple occurances of the same string is necessarily redundant. It
> > requires a limited data model and definitions to obscure this fact.
>
> This has nothing to do with the data model. The definition of logical
> redundancy is independent of what data model you choose.

ID Person Color Street
1 brown brown brown

One only needs to look at the above tuple to see 'brown' is redundant. One can become blind to this obvious fact by seeing things through a limited data model.  

> > I am not sure what point you
> > are making, but changing one 'brown' to 'nworb' in a db with multiple
> > occurances of the same string results in an update anomaly.
>
> Not according to the standard definition of update anomaly in
> normalization theory. It would really help communication if you stopped
> giving standard terminology your own Neo-meaning.

Then your/RM's standard definition/theory is limited as changing one 'brown' to 'nworb' in a db with multiple occurances of that string results in unsynchronized data.

> Note, by the way, that in your "normalized" representation you
> sometimes need two updates (the creation of a new list of characters plus
> the update of a reference) for what was originally only one update
> (updating a string).

The number of updates have nothing to do with the fact that string 'brown' is redundant in the following tuple:

ID Person Color Street
1 brown brown brown

> whereas your example is a bit exotic, to say the least.

It is not for a data model to make a judgement whether something is exotic or not. Received on Tue Jul 13 2004 - 19:44:47 CEST