Re: A Normalization Question
From: Chris Hoess <choess_at_stwing.upenn.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 21:30:51 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <slrnceu3kb.h62.choess_at_force.stwing.upenn.edu>
>
> Well, the term "redundancy" has a pretty well-specified meaning in
> normalization theory. The informal version of that definition is as follows:
>
> "A certain part of that data structure is said to be redundant if you
> cannot remove it without losing information."
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 21:30:51 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <slrnceu3kb.h62.choess_at_force.stwing.upenn.edu>
In article <gMzHc.180582$Q%4.8677405_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be>, Jan Hidders wrote:
> Marshall Spight wrote:
>> >> You keep treating redundancy and normalization as if >> they were the same things; they're not.
>
> Well, the term "redundancy" has a pretty well-specified meaning in
> normalization theory. The informal version of that definition is as follows:
>
> "A certain part of that data structure is said to be redundant if you
> cannot remove it without losing information."
ITYM "can remove it". Anyway, Neo appears to be insistent on defining normalization as "some process on the database which removes redundancy"; unfortunately, such a definition makes it virtually impossible to make general statements about "normalization" above and beyond the definition itself.
-- Chris HoessReceived on Fri Jul 09 2004 - 23:30:51 CEST