Re: How to normalize this?
From: Jan Hidders <hidders_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 10:10:49 +0200
Message-ID: <51861409$0$6057$e4fe514c_at_dreader36.news.xs4all.nl>
>
> It's not clear to me what you are describing or how it relates to
> arguing against stopping at 3nf.
Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 10:10:49 +0200
Message-ID: <51861409$0$6057$e4fe514c_at_dreader36.news.xs4all.nl>
On 2013-05-04 23:32:18 +0000, compdb_at_hotmail.com said:
> On Thursday, May 2, 2013 6:23:07 AM UTC-7, Jan Hidders wrote:
>> But most> textbooks I know are correct and clear on this and will state
>> that the> goal is for example a lossless-join and
>> dependency-preserving> decomposition.
>
> Can you name some? Because I don't think books are clear about
> normalization within design, which involves generated predicates and
> constraint preservation. Normalization per se assumes the generated
> components are projections of the original, ie are suitably
> constrained, without addressing the management of those constraints (eg
> introducing FKs for lost FDs).
>
>> 1. Apply the 3NF normalization procedure we discussed earlier >> 2. Include with each component only the FDs that generated that component
>
> It's not clear to me what you are describing or how it relates to
> arguing against stopping at 3nf.
- Jan Hidders