Subject | Re: How does firebird handle null values? |
---|---|
Author | Adam |
Post date | 2007-09-01T01:40:23Z |
--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "Fabio Gomes" <fabioxgn@...>
wrote:
far with normalisation, for example many tables are named entities, so
you could have
NamedEntity
(
NamedEntityID
Name
);
Company
(
CompanyID
NamedEntityID
etc
).
In fact, many things implemented by domains (pseudo Boolean types,
gender definitions etc) are arguably a convenient shortcut (but there
are some performance reasons to use a domain over a lookup column)
big fat table using unions and joins.
Adam
wrote:
>adding
> Hi,
>
> We have a database that is too normalized, and this normalization is
> too much complexity to our code, so we are going to take all thetables that
> are too normalized and join them into just one table.With respect, that is usually a bad idea. I mean I know you can go too
far with normalisation, for example many tables are named entities, so
you could have
NamedEntity
(
NamedEntityID
Name
);
Company
(
CompanyID
NamedEntityID
etc
).
In fact, many things implemented by domains (pseudo Boolean types,
gender definitions etc) are arguably a convenient shortcut (but there
are some performance reasons to use a domain over a lookup column)
>Or have the best of both worlds. Create a view that looks like this
> But still we are thinking about how would be the best way to do that,
> joining everything possible into one big and fat table, or leaving some
> tables normalized.
big fat table using unions and joins.
Adam