Path: news.easynews.com!easynews!peer1-sjc1.usenetserver.com!usenetserver.com!sn-xit-04!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: "Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster" <joe@bftsi0.UUCP>
Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory,comp.databases.oracle.server,comp.databases.oracle.misc,comp.databases.olap
Subject: Re: Which normal form is this violating?
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 08:37:02 -0700
Organization: North American Marcab-Teegeeack Love Association
Message-ID: <ucg99p44crm634@corp.supernews.com>
Reply-To: "Joe \"Nuke Me Xemu\" Foster" <jlf%40znet%2ecom>
References: <a8c29269.0204242031.9d9964f@posting.google.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com
Lines: 49
Xref: easynews comp.databases.theory:20547 comp.databases.oracle.server:144584 comp.databases.oracle.misc:80727 comp.databases.olap:17870
X-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 08:45:47 MST (news.easynews.com)

"Roger Redford" <dba_222@yahoo.com> wrote in message <news:a8c29269.0204242031.9d9964f@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)

This might make some sense if Table_A and Table_B correspond to
Class_A and Class_B in the application language, with Class_B
derived or inheriting from Class_A.

> (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. )

Perhaps someone just really, really dislikes Null...?

> 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.

The normalization rules cover only things that can be formalized
enough to eventually automate, while what you're talking about
still seems firmly entrenched in "judgement-call" land.  <shrug/>

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com>     Got Thetans? <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above        They're   coming  to
because  my cats have  apparently  learned to type.        take me away, ha ha!