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
