Paul Newton wrote:
>> Because you’re a sissy? http://www.kottke.org/04/10/normalized-data
>>
>>
> OK - I checked it out - a LOT of the comments were in disagreement with
> the thesis
>
The attitude "space is cheap" has always bothered me. Imo, it's cut
from the same cloth as "let's just throw more people/money at the
problem rather than fix it." Sure, like everything, the answer "it
depends" is relevant here yet again. I've seen tables used for
messaging and/or simple lookups, and although at one glance they look
like shit, well, that's what makes the views/stored procedures that much
more valuable--to extract and give you what you need rather than worry
about the structure of the underlying database tables.
Personally, I don't like denormalization in most instances because of
the same reason this guy said in the comments of that article:
chris crippen says:
and if you have more then one programmer working on different parts
of an application, each programmer then needs to know where to
update each table that that holds this "duplicate" information.
missing one update could invalidate your entire database.
*
*
The integrity of the data means more to me than squeezing a few more
fractions of a second for speed.
--
Michael J. Babcock, MCP
MB Software Solutions, LLC
http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com
http://fabmate.com
"Work smarter, not harder, with MBSS custom software solutions!"
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
