3 ms·
Wow, this was hard to read. Not because it was very complex, just because of the incomplete sentences and unessescary use of abbreviations. In the other post [
by gnud 10y ago
Wow, this was hard to read.
Not because it was very complex, just because of the incomplete sentences and unessescary use of abbreviations.
In the other post [1], linked from this one, he nit-picks because the question uses the terms "tables" and "fields" instead of "relations" and "attributes".
I'm sure the author knows more about relational modelling than me, but I'm not sure I would enjoy asking him for advice.
1: http://www.dbdebunk.com/2012/09/NormalOrthogDBDesign_3.html http://www.dbdebunk.com/2012/09/NormalOrthogDBDesign_3.html
- Retra 10y agoI think the point there is that if you're thinking of a database as a collection of fields and tables, then there's a chance you might be failing to understand why we use relational databases in the first place, rather than just... tables of data which are indexed as fields. Anyway, in my experience, when someone is insisting on some specific terminology, they tend to have a good reason to do so (at least to the end of highlighting the specific confusions that lead to avoiding yours), and the mental hoops you have to jump through to figure out why their terminology is better are the kinds of things one needs to do to learn. > I'm not sure I would enjoy asking him for advice. I'm not sure you should be optimizing for your own enjoyment when it comes to asking people for advice.
- Chris2048 10y ago> I'm not sure you should be optimizing for your own enjoyment when it comes to asking people for advice. Who talked of optimisation? If you can deliver the same information without the pain, why not do so?
- sgeneris 10y ago> Wow, this was hard to read. Well maybe the reader had something to do with it.
- mhluongo 10y agoAre you trying to communicate, or be right on the internet? If you're trying to communicate, readability matters.