Normalisation was not the right word.  Each row has only two columns - "id" INT 
and "description" VARCHAR.  So the rows did not, indeed could not, contain data 
relating to more than one entity.

It was the /table/ which contained mixed data.  The description column had data 
for two different categories of object and a third column would have been needed 
to differentiate between the two.  I decided, instead, to have two tables.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael T. Babcock wrote:

> >In the interests of better normalisation I decided to divide one table's data 
> >between two tables.  So I created another table and copied selected rows into 
> >it.
> >  
> >
> 
> I'd love to know how you believe that copying rows to another table is 
> better for normalization.  If you mean that you moved columns to a new 
> table, then it makes sense; but rows?  Where you getting bad query 
> response time?
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> -- 
> Michael T. Babcock
> C.T.O., FibreSpeed Ltd.
> http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Before posting, please check:
>    http://www.mysql.com/manual.php   (the manual)
>    http://lists.mysql.com/           (the list archive)
> 
> To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
>




---------------------------------------------------------------------
Before posting, please check:
   http://www.mysql.com/manual.php   (the manual)
   http://lists.mysql.com/           (the list archive)

To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php

Reply via email to