Re: Normalization is always good?

Jamu,

> I have been working with SQL databases for about a year in a half and
> in that time I've come to the conclusion that it is not always
> preferable to normalize to a high level (like 3rd level).  In some
> cases, depending on the application, I've found that normalizing to a
> ridiculous degree has shot me in the foot in terms of the
> responsibility of my code to manage what happens in the database.

There I'd agree with you ... there is the question of *how rigorous* you
want your normalization to be.  I tend to hover around the simplest
normal form, most of the time.  And I do a few things (such as
polymorhic sub-tables) that would give Fabian Pascal fits :-)

However, there is (in my mind) no question as to whether a database
should be normalized, just how much effort is spent on normalization as
opposed to other considerations (UI, performance, development time).

> I've found referential integrity makes normalization a less expensive
> notion as it absolves you of the task of keeping data current in all
> your tables.  I've also found that working in an object oriented
> language makes normalization less expensive.

What do you use?  I've given up on OODB interfaces, myself, as I did not
find them helpful, but that's modtly because I was working in MS-land.

> What are the views of the people on this list re: Normalization
> Guidelines?  Anybody know of any good web sites that talk about this
> in depth?

Yup.  http://www.databasedebunking.com/  Dig through the archives.

-Josh Berkus

-- 
______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________                                       Josh Berkus  Complete
informationtechnology      josh@agliodbs.com   and data management solutions       (415) 565-7293  for law firms, small
businesses      fax  621-2533   and non-profit organizations.       San Francisco