Re: why not a one table database ?

[This followup was posted to comp.databases.theory and a copy was sent to the cited author.]

In article <398f84ee.1919174_at_news.cgocable.ca>, taz_at_hy.cgocable.ca says...
>
> Hi. I need a question answered, if anyone can clue me in....
> a friend of mine just completed a project wich consists of slapping
> together a simple d-b for a local garage. He did it in access, & it
> basically is made up of ONE table, in wich all customer information is
> supplied,(Name,Tel, Address, & a field for the model of the car.
> The customer wants to be able to find his customers just by typing in
> a phone number..... wich in itself is simple. Never having done a d-b
> on a commercial level myself, I tried to ' convince ' my friend that
> he needed two, maybe three tables to prevent redundancy in his data
> For example, if you have 2 customers at same adress..... or 1
> customer with 2 cars ? What defines the number of tables used in a
> small project like this ? Any reading material would be appreciated.

You are correct. You have intuitively stumbled upon some of the "rules of normalization". Study up on that term (normalization) a bit and you'll be able to better articulate to your buddy why one table just won't make it. Received on Mon Aug 07 2000 - 00:00:00 CEST