Re: teaching relational basics to people, questions
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:56:40 -0400
Message-ID: <4b081bcd$0$5354$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
>
> I think you are being excessively optimistic. The most persistent (and
> most common) reason people incorporate nullable columns into designs is
> because they have a misplaced desire to minimize the number of tables in
> the design, and think that conflating multiple fact types in one table
> is clever, efficient, and harmless.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:56:40 -0400
Message-ID: <4b081bcd$0$5354$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
Roy Hann wrote:
>>[snip] And since >>one would have to have a bona fide range datatype, building in >>handling for infinite ranges would also be easy; that'd get rid of one >>of the most persistent reasons why people incorporate nulls into >>designs.
>
> I think you are being excessively optimistic. The most persistent (and
> most common) reason people incorporate nullable columns into designs is
> because they have a misplaced desire to minimize the number of tables in
> the design, and think that conflating multiple fact types in one table
> is clever, efficient, and harmless.
Very well put! Received on Sat Nov 21 2009 - 17:56:40 CET