On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 02:44:08PM -0700, CityDev scratched on the wall:
>
> More recently the term 'denormalise' has been used
> instead. This is where you repeat foreign data in a table to avoid the
> overhead of joins at runtime.
> Over the intervening years I can't ever remember
Try writing apps for cellphones and both space and time become
important again!
- Original Message -
From: "Simon Slavin" <slav...@hearsay.demon.co.uk>
To: "General Discussion of SQLite Database" <sqlite-users@sqlite.org>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2
> Is it OK nowadays to say always aim to be fully normalised - modern
> RDBMSs are usually powerful enough to cope with most anything?
I suggest that aiming for fully normalised databases is the way to go,
for the traditional and still relevant reasons of data integrity, file
size,
On 27 Jul 2009, at 10:44pm, CityDev wrote:
> Over the intervening years I can't ever remember denormalising data
> (even
> when dealing with eg 13 million insurance customers in a table). Is
> it OK
> nowadays to say always aim to be fully normalised - modern RDBMSs are
> usually powerful
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, CityDev wrote:
> Over the intervening years I can't ever remember denormalising data (even
> when dealing with eg 13 million insurance customers in a table). Is it OK
> nowadays to say always aim to be fully normalised - modern RDBMSs are
> usually powerful enough to cope
I did a Computer Science MSc 30 years ago specialising in databases (the
relational model was only in prototypes). Of course normalisation was well
known, but what people would say is normalising is the easy part; the skill
comes in 'collapsing'. More recently the term 'denormalise' has been used
6 matches
Mail list logo
