This article uncover so many puzzles in my mind as a newbie DBA.
Thanks Tim, Keep going.
Regards,
Naser
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Find another source if you really want to understand the normal forms. This author has his normal forms confused.
And shame on him for suggesting performance is good excuse to denormalize.
And shame on him for suggesting performance is good excuse to denormalize.
Except for very rare cases, for a transactional database, normalize to at least the 3rd form. Denormalize through views. Normalize for editing; denormalize for reporting
Seen that go well wrong.
The developers started doing joins on the views. The views were multi table joins with user defined functions and all sorts of other fun stuff.
A lot of developers don't know near enough about database design and implementation to tune for operational requirements. A lot of DBA's go down the purist route and and up with a design that the devlopers can;t really use...
You can compromise a design for editing and reporting, you can't optimise it though. Use different databases.
So the real issue is does the performance loss or the integrity loss add up to the cost of maintaining an other database. if it doesn't then end up with a practical mish-mash of conflicting requirements.
The developers started doing joins on the views. The views were multi table joins with user defined functions and all sorts of other fun stuff.
A lot of developers don't know near enough about database design and implementation to tune for operational requirements. A lot of DBA's go down the purist route and and up with a design that the devlopers can;t really use...
You can compromise a design for editing and reporting, you can't optimise it though. Use different databases.
So the real issue is does the performance loss or the integrity loss add up to the cost of maintaining an other database. if it doesn't then end up with a practical mish-mash of conflicting requirements.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
