Re: Normalize until neat, Automate until Complete

"Kenneth Downs" <firstinit.lastname_at_lastnameplusfam.net> wrote in message news:o5ve72-r03.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net...
> We hear the term "Denormalizing for performance" very often, and depending
> upon who is doing it, there might be an exasperated "et tu brute?" along
> with it.
>
> The informal slogan that serves as a nominal rationalization for
> denormalization is often given as "Normalize until it hurts, denormalize
> until it works." This slogan, even though it almost rhymes, does not give
> us much useful guidance. In this slogan normalization is a bad thing, but
> actually is given no redeeming value. On the contrary, the denormalized
> system has the advantage that it *works*. So why normalize? Why not just
> make a system that "works"?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The problem with "denormalizing" is that it doesn't tell you which way to go.

"Do you know the way to San Jose?"
"Don't go West."

Yeah, but...

When I'm designing a star schema, it's not that I'm "denormalizing". It's that I'm following a different discipline. Received on Thu Nov 25 2004 - 01:07:41 CET