Re: A Normalization Question

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

Whether I or you makes rules is not important, but how well do they allow us to achieve certains goals is. Your/RM's rules don't allow you to recognize that 'brown', 'brown', 'brown' is redundant because you need to fit values in a certain/special way in the attributes of tuples. My data model (TM) recognizes that 'brown', 'brown', 'brown' is redundant without as many certain/special constraints. The net result is that the string 'brown' is subject to update anomaly in RM but not in TM.

> Besides, you know damn well that we are talking about relational theory.

I am talking about representing things in a db using any model and RM is but one limited method of doing so.

> > 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.

ID Person
1 brown
2 brown
3 brown

I am wondering, if you/RM fail to see that the string 'brown' (which names three different persons) is redundant above also and is subject to the same update anomaly? Received on Wed Jul 14 2004 - 12:55:56 CDT