I'm working on an application right now where the data is very denormalized. The app as several groups of bit fields which should have been placed in a separate table and associated with a cross-reference table. Why was it set up that way? Concerns about performance? A strong opinion that excessive normalization was bad?
No. The reason why this database is so denormalized is that the original database/application were create in Access, and the "developer" didn't even know Access that well. They knew they needed to bind all the controls to the database, but they didn't understand the pain they were causing by creating 200 bit fields.
I'll proudly wear the mantle of "sissy" if I don't have to support any more databases like this.
3 comments:
It's SQL no Sequel ;)
Jake
http://www.whoisjake.com/blog
I'm working on an application right now where the data is very denormalized. The app as several groups of bit fields which should have been placed in a separate table and associated with a cross-reference table. Why was it set up that way? Concerns about performance? A strong opinion that excessive normalization was bad?
No. The reason why this database is so denormalized is that the original database/application were create in Access, and the "developer" didn't even know Access that well. They knew they needed to bind all the controls to the database, but they didn't understand the pain they were causing by creating 200 bit fields.
I'll proudly wear the mantle of "sissy" if I don't have to support any more databases like this.
I am a sissy, too :)
Post a Comment