Re: Normalize until neat, Automate until Complete

Kenneth Downs wrote:

> 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"?
>
> The fact that so many people in the real world are willing to denormalize
> suggests that the RDM in itself is not providing a complete set of guiding
> principles for real-world database operations. When people "denormalize
> for performance", and I don't mean amateurs here, they are reaching for
> something. Just as perturbations in a planet's orbit can lead scientists
> to suspect and discover other planets, perhaps theoreticians can look at
> the practioners' efforts and realize that there must be more to the story.
>
> I would suggest a better slogan would be "Normalize until Neat, Automate
> until Complete," which actually gives some guidance to the denormalization
> process. The idea is that user-entered or imported data should be
> normalized for standard reason, nothing new there. The process of
> automation requires a normalized database as a starting point, so that the
> generated columns are built upon a valid base.
>
> I have a simple question for those who oppose automation on the grounds that
> it denormalizes. If normalization is intended to ensure correctness, and
> your system disallows writes to automated columns, have you not preserved
> correctness while also improving the lot of your users? If so, isn't that
> what it's all about?
>
> If we separate theory from implementation for a moment, which means that we
> lay aside performance concerns, then the only motivation for automation is
> to make the database more complete. If it can be made more complete
> without threatening correctness, is not this an a priori Good Thing?
>

Your suggestion would have more validity if any of the people using the term 'denormalize' had a clue what normalization is or what it would look like. Received on Fri Nov 26 2004 - 22:31:12 CET