| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> repeating groups (was: something with nVL and NULL)
Marshall Spight wrote:
> David Cressey wrote:
>
>>The problem, in this case, is that current terminology with regard to 1NF is >>divided, among data modellers, on precisely the point that Dawn wishes to >>discuss: the elimination of repeating groups as a first step in normalizing >>a schema or relations.
>>According to the way many of us (I include myself) use the terminology, >>putting a relation into 1NF implies decomposing, when necessary, in order to >>express repeating groups as sets of tuples, in separate relations.
Aren't you jumping over the "order may have meaning" problem here by taking these two together?
> 3) Fully nested relations.
lists-of-lists? sets-of-sets? lists-of-sets? sets-of-lists?
> Actually, 2) was something I hadn't really thought of before:
> add *one* level of nesting. This idea is interesting but less
> appealing than 3, because it is less regular. I tend to prefer
> orthogonal designs; they have fewer arbitrary limitations.
>
> The thing that I can't help but feel, though, is that the whole
> thing is a false dichotomy. If you can really always do the
> composition/decomposition, then it would appear that the
> choice between nested structure or not could be expressed
> simply as a view. How come no one ever talks about that
> idea?
When I try to make an example, sooner or later I find myself somehow inventing new user relevant meaning (which IMO is wrong) - but this just may be because I can't come up with the right examples.
[snip agreement on Date's definition] Received on Sat Feb 18 2006 - 19:11:22 CST
![]() |
![]() |