Re: A Normalization Question

"Neo" <neo55592_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4b45d3ad.0407121954.19f3b2a9_at_posting.google.com...
> > From "Fundamentals of Database Systems", Elmasri/Navathe, 3rd Ed.
> > (Electronic Version) Addison-Wesley Copyright 2000:
> > "Normalization of data can hence be looked upon as a process of
analyzing
> > the given relation schemas based on their FDs and primary keys to
achieve
> > the desirable properties of (1) minimizing redundancy and (2) minimizing
the
> > insertion, deletion, and update anomalies..."
>
> The above definition is in context to RM and is limited because not
> all data models use or require a relation (as defined by RM). The
> above definition is a subset of mine: With respect to dbs,
> normalization is the process of eliminating or replacing duplicate
> things with a reference to the original thing (ie fact, entity,
> object, relation, etc) being represented. This is equilvalent to xNF
> where x can be infinite.

Making up your own rules to prove your point does not prove your point.

>
> > 1. "Normalization of data can hence be looked upon as a process of
analyzing
> > the given relation schemas based on their FDs and primary keys..."
>
> A limited definition as not all data models use relations.

And they don't get normalized. Besides, you know damn well that we are talking about relational theory.

>
> > 3. Nowhere is it ever stated that a degree of redundancy approaching
zero is
> > the goal, or even a desireable outcome. Normalizing to the nth degree is
> > not necessarily a good thing.
>
> Whether an xNF is good or bad is a judgement that I am not making.

Sure you are.

> What I am pointing out is that a db containing the string 'brown'
> three times has redundant data and can result in update anomaly.

And it has been proven uncounted times that this statement is not correct. Received on Wed Jul 14 2004 - 01:05:54 CEST