Re: sql views for denomalizing
From: Marshall Spight <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: 29 Jul 2005 23:30:51 -0700
Message-ID: <1122705051.364900.190060_at_g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> That's where I get messed up because instead of just showing the view,
> I have to massage that view simply because one of the attributes on the
> page has cardinality greater than 1.
Date: 29 Jul 2005 23:30:51 -0700
Message-ID: <1122705051.364900.190060_at_g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
dawn wrote:
>
> That's where I get messed up because instead of just showing the view,
> I have to massage that view simply because one of the attributes on the
> page has cardinality greater than 1.
Says who?
First of all, even existing SQL products allow *some* attributes to have > 1 cardinality: varchar.
Second, a variety of authors advocate nested relations, either
not considering them to violate 1NF (Date et al) or not caring.
(Me, say.)
Third, who says you have to do the whole webpage with just a single
view?
> If the view is supposed to be the view of the data, then why do we have
> this 1NF restriction when we don't care about the other NF's in a view?
I don't agree that we do. In theory.
Marshall
PS. Remember, this is the *theory* newsgroup. Received on Sat Jul 30 2005 - 08:30:51 CEST