| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Normalized Databases = Poor Performance?
I don't know if it's still around, but at 2004 IOUG in Toronto, there was a presentation that discussed the benefits of normalization in general, and normalization beyond 3NF in particular, which included better performance.
 
I regret that I didn't attend Hotsos this year, but I had just started a new job...
Paul Baumgartel 
CREDIT SUISSE 
Information Technology 
DBA & Admin - NY, KIGA 1 
11 Madison Avenue 
New York, NY 10010 
USA 
Phone 212.538.1143 
paul.baumgartel_at_credit-suisse.com 
www.credit-suisse.com 
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]On Behalf Of Ethan Post
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 3:10 PM
To: _oracle_L_list
Subject: Normalized Databases = Poor Performance?
In light of Jared's highly informative presention on why we should normalize for performance (Hotsos 2006) I was struck by this statement.
http://www.quest-pipelines.com/newsletter-v7/newsletter_0406.htm <http://www.quest-pipelines.com/newsletter-v7/newsletter_0406.htm>
Materialized views are an Oracle Silver Bullet when pre-joining tables together for super-fast response time.
One issue with highly-normalized, non-redundant Oracle table designs (e.g. third normal form) is that Oracle experiences a high degree of overhead (especially CPU consumption) when joining dozens of tables together, over-and-over again.
Using materialized views we pre-join the tables together, resulting in a single, fat, wide and highly-redundant table.
Not trying to start a flame war or anything here! While there are certainly "truisms" in the statement above, it does seem to me at first glance to be a statement that feeds into the "normalization hurts performance" mindset.
I have not read the entire article yet.
Thanks,
Ethan
 
 
http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Thu May 04 2006 - 14:16:21 CDT
![]()  | 
![]()  |