Mahler Thomas wrote: >>Oh... and why don't we use a 1:1 reference to a separate >>Quantity table? >>Because no matter how hard I try, I can't convince people >>that we shouldn't >>let customers use Crystal Reports to report directly from the >>back-end. So >>in the interest of not confusing customers too much, the >>denormalisation is >>necessary. >> > >Cool argument! >I propose to push this concept one step further: >why not have a totally denormalized database with only one table? >This will allow Excel users to understand your system :-) > Couldn't you provide the same functionality with a view (rendered by a stored procedure, perhaps) -- and thereby preserve normalization in the actual tables?
>cheers, >Thomas > >>Thanks and sorry for the lengthy post, >> >>Gareth. >> Regards, Eddie -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
