Re: relational reasoning -- why two tables and not one?

Philipp Post wrote:

>> > I agree that the single table solution will not scale up well,
>>
>> How do you figure that?
>
> If the requirements for this solution will be extended, you will have
> to go splitting up that single table into two or more, depending on
> the attributes on hand.

Although that is not the usual notion of what it means to "scale up" I guessed that's probably what you had in mind. But in the absence of any good reason to prefer one random guess at a future conceptual model over any other, you are just firing from the hip and not improving the design.

>> > is not
>> > properly normalized,
>>
>> And how do you figure that?
>
> From what we have to guess from the description of the OP. E. g.
> {donation_nbr, donator_name, donator_address, donation_amt,
> donation_date}

Well, with just as much justification, my guess is that the OP's single table is already 5NF.

-- 
Roy