Re: Views for denomalizing

From: David Cressey <david.cressey_at_earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 00:18:45 GMT
Message-ID: <FtyNd.3681$wK.2493_at_newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>

"Alan" <alan_at_erols.com> wrote in message news:36hd5nF520miuU1_at_individual.net...

> That is why I specifically stated why I was avoiding the distinction. So
> what happens? You bring it up anyway.
>
>
Sorry about that. If you had said something like "the conceptual model is outside the scope of my discussion"
I might have caught on a little better than I did.

I don't mind leaving the conceptual model out of the discussion of normalization. I don't mind it at all.
But when you say you want to treat it as the same as logical, I have a problem with that. Received on Mon Feb 07 2005 - 01:18:45 CET

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Neo: "Re: Can we solve this -- NFNF and non-1NF at Loggerheads"
Previous message: lauri.pietarinen_at_atbusiness.com: "Re: Can we solve this -- NFNF and non-1NF at Loggerheads"
Maybe in reply to: Dawn M. Wolthuis: "Views for denomalizing"
In reply to Alan: "Re: Views for denomalizing"
Next in thread: Neo: "Re: Can we solve this -- NFNF and non-1NF at Loggerheads"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message