4 ms·
You're not really addressing the point of the comment you are replying to, which is about what constitutes a normalized relation, not what constitutes a relatio
by brazzy 5y ago
You're not really addressing the point of the comment you are replying to, which is about what constitutes a normalized relation, not what constitutes a relation.
And I agree, TFA is just flat out wrong.
A relation Manager with a CSV-valued column SubordinateIds or columns named "Subordinate1Id" through "Subordinate9Id" is most definitely not normalized because those are in effect a (bad) simulation of hierarchical-database-style repeating groups. That they have distinct names (or positions in the CSV list) is an artifact of the representation and not really part of the data model.
- mamcx 5y agoTo be pedantic, is not a contradiction. Is a sign of problem with the design? Probably! Most likely! But the relational model CAN'T say it. The normal forms are properties of the way you can do the design, but can't go that Deep. In other words: You can adhere 100% on SOLID OOP principles and your code is still conceptually wrong! If pay attention to the article, his issue is that people latches on the apparent definition of 1st normal form, but misunderstanding it and probably coming to the wrong conclusion about how make the tables...