Re: Which normal form is this violating?

dba_222_at_yahoo.com (Roger Redford) wrote in message news:<a8c29269.0204242031.9d9964f_at_posting.google.com>...
> Hello DB Design experts,
>
> I'm having the usual disputes about database design issues.
>
> The information that my coworkers have is say, x and y.
> It has a one to one relationship. Therefore, it
> goes into one and the same table.
>
> Table_A
> Fieldx (pk)
> Fieldy
>
>
> However, they are arguing that it goes into another table.
>
> Table_A
> Fieldx (pk)
>
> Table_B
> Fieldx (pk)
> Fieldy (not null)
>
> (Actually, thye have "designed" a number of strange tables,
> and then put views on top of them, to come back to the same one to
> one relationship. Very strange and complex. )
>
> What normal form does this violate? It isn't 1st,
> 2nd, or 3rd. Boyce-Codd maybe? The crazy thing about
> the design texts, is that they rarely cover mistakes
> in design. This is a common one.
>
> Thanks

If Fieldx has many attributes, it might make sense to partition the attributes across two tables. If there are only a few attributes, they should stay in the same table. What rationale have your cow-orkers given for partitioning the data as they propose? Received on Thu Apr 25 2002 - 16:10:16 CEST