Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 08:51:23PM +0100, Always Learning wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 10:42 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
<SNIP>
>> Not a 'join' insight :-)
>
> I think this is how we all started learning SQL and writing web
> applications... without normalization. And it won't cause you much
> grief in simpler use case scenarios with smaller data sizes.
>
> You might take a stab at learning normalization though. It's really
> quite intuitive, helps keep your tables from "column bloat" and you can
> offload a lot of the processing to the SQL engine instead of passing
<snip>
First time I was working with SQL, in '91, my manager tried normalizing
the tables... with the result that one data file had more key than data in
each record, sorry, "row", oops, that's tuple, and it was a HUGE number of
rows.
I offered a redesign that had a fixed number of datum, and he took that.
Took the number of records vastly down.
Normalization is a torx screwdriver; it doesn't fit all uses.
mark