Re: Views for denomalizing

"Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_novoa_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:520701hrid6r7u9fi09ugnqnkgl9694hdd_at_4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 22:34:40 -0600, "Dawn M. Wolthuis"
> <dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> wrote:
>
>>1) SQL-DBMS's (at least those that conform to SQL92) provide no
>>constraints
>>on the user creating new tables to restrict base tables from being
>>denormalized EXCEPT in the case of the first normal form.
>
> But SQL allows the definition of table variables that does not fulfill
> the prerequisites for being in 1NF (nulls and duplicates).
>
>>1NF is the only normal form that is forced upon us by many common industry
>>tools.
>
> So this is wrong.

The theory-previously-known-as-1NF, the aspect that was most widely associated with the term, the aspect of 1NF that has no name on its own and to which I cannot seem to refer -- PLEASE, PLEASE GIVE IT A ONE OR TWO-WORD NAME AND I'LL USE IT! -- is what I'm referring to. So, what I meant and what you likely knew I intended, is accurate, right?

>>Yet SQL-DBMS's and
>>related tools consider it so much more important than the other normal
>>forms
>>that even in the views, where denormalization is common, acceptable, and
>>clearly useful, non-1NF is still not (typically, as best I can tell)
>>employed.
>
> And this is wrong too.
>
>> But
>>we as a profession will need to attend to those who already graduated to
>>eliminate the bias against lists within attributes, at least when it comes
>>to views of the data, if not base relations.
>
> Lists within attributes break the Information Principle, the most
> fundamental principle of the Relational Model.

This is terminology, I think -- if my "list" (in English) is modeled as a relation, then it may be the type of an attribute, right? --dawn

> Regards
>
>
Received on Fri Feb 04 2005 - 17:53:54 CET