Re: one big tables vs. many smaller

From: Steffen Ramlow <s.ramlow_at_gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 10:57:50 +0200
Message-ID: <a8mdc4$tcr4r$1@ID-54600.news.dfncis.de>

huch - did i ever talked about normalization?

i talked about (read) performance and possible problems when using the DE-normalized design

as i already said - i personally would _always_ use the normalized form, but i need hard facts against the denormalized form, that's why i posted the question

this is what i think:

denormalized:

pros:

    better read performance coz no join is needed (is the join really to expensive?)
cons:

    the table becomes really big

        -> maybe a performance hit
        -> maintenance difficulties

    many null values (what are the problems with them?)     other?

what i wanted to know is, what others think about this - i don't wanted to hear such general statements like "this is not normalized", this was clean right from the beginning

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message news:3CAE11DE.381CBABD_at_exesolutions.com...
> You just defeated your own argument in your statement. If there are many
many
> null values you do not have a normalized schema.
>
> I don't say this to be insulting ... but it seems that you have not
studied data
> normalization. A normalized table should not be a sparse matrix. And your
> arument with respect to the number of "sub" tables is equally not relevant
in a
> properly normalized schema. It strikes me that things you are considering
should
> never exist.
>
> Daniel Morgan
>
>
>
> Steffen Ramlow wrote:
>
> > "damorgan" <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message
> > news:3CAC87E3.387D6428_at_exesolutions.com...
> > > Much like other things in life ... size has nothing to do with it ...
it
> > is
> > > what you do with it that counts. The definition of a table should be
based
> > on
> > > data normalization tempered by performance. If it belongs in one table
...
> > > stick it there. If not ... don't.
> >
> > if there would only be one or to tables "Sub" then i would out int into
the
> > big table
> > but there are up to 10 "Sub" tables - thus a big tables with many many
null
> > values
>
Received on Sat Apr 06 2002 - 02:57:50 CST