Re: Who first (publicly) asserted 3NF is "good enough"?
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 04:46:48 GMT
Message-ID: <YCKPg.22751$9u.271240_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> I think that it is a lot better to use BCNF.
>
> BCNF is "better" than 3NF and even easier to check IMO.
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 04:46:48 GMT
Message-ID: <YCKPg.22751$9u.271240_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Alfredo Novoa wrote:
>>Having a thorough understanding of 3nf may be good enough as long as one >>also knows to open a reference text at the first hint of a complex >>dependency or a compound key.
>
> I think that it is a lot better to use BCNF.
>
> BCNF is "better" than 3NF and even easier to check IMO.
Would the real 3nf please stand up? BCNF is what 3nf was intended to be except somebody goofed. If asked to describe 3nf, most folks would describe BCNF instead. Received on Tue Sep 19 2006 - 06:46:48 CEST